m mim w CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Cornell University Library 81.P551918 Three centuries of treaties of peace and 3 1924 005 234 780 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924005234780 THREE CENTURIES OF TREATIES OF PEACE AND THEIR TEACHING ^^^^^^^^^^K '''^^tf^^^^^^^^^^^^H ^V^ '''"''' I^^^^^^V^^^^^^^^^H ^T^ ^ /Luqt > C/ r( 'tu u) ■^y-il)alJ...-fJ^.y FHREE CExNTURIES OF TREATIES OF PEACE AND THEIR TEACHING BY THE RIGHT HON, SIR WALTER GEORGE FRANK PHILLIMORE BART., 0.C.I.., LLP. LATE l.Otll> }VSTICK Or AfPEAL, rORMERLY FKLLOW 6» All. SOUiJ- COLLICE, OXFOKD . BOSTON LITTLE, BROV > AND COMPANY 19x8 ' THREE CENTURIES OF TREATIES OF PEACE AND THEIR TEACHING BY THE RIGHT HON. SIR WALTER GEORGE FRANK PHILLIMORE BART., D.C.L., LL.D. LATE LORD JUSTICE OF APPEAL, FORHEKLY FELLOW OF ALL SOULS' COLLEGE, OXFORD BOSTON LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY X9X8 AT THK BALLANTYNE PKESS PRINTED »Y SPOTTISWOODE, BALLAMTYMB AKD CO. LTD. COLCHESTER, LONDON AND ETON, ENGLAND TO THE MEMORY OF GROTIUS Mens provida .... Dissentientis conditionibus Foedis. UNDER WHOSE PORTRAIT MUCH OF THIS ESSAY HAS BEEN WRITTEN PREFACE A PREFACE is in the nature of an apology. My excuse for the introduction of this work to the pubhc is to be found in the following considera- tions : We are all looking forward to the future peace. We are longing for it. At the same time we are conscious how difficult it will be to make peace, how specially difficult to make a sure and lasting peace, difficult, even supposing that every nation and its rulers sincerely and heartily desire it. Never was there a war in which so many Nations were engaged. Never has there been a settlement of so many questions as this peace will have to settle. These will not be mere questions of taking so much territory from one State and transferring it to another. The creation and dissolution of States will come under dis- cussion. An old State may have to be divided ; two old States may be thrown together. New States and Confederations may arise ; old States may be submerged and destroyed. Nor will the task be ended when the establish- vii viii Preface ment and territories of the several States have been ascertained. The future peace will be a Congress of Vienna, a Hague Conference, and a Geneva Convention rolled into one. If it is to be of any value, it must not only settle the several nations of the world on a tranquil footing with a just consideration of their several claims ; it must provide some securities against such another war. There must be some machinery for deterring States from embarking on war, providing other methods of determining differences, and throw- ing the weight of the civilised world into the scale against unlawful or wanton aggression. And if war is to be, there must be some pro- visions more effectual than those we have at present, to prevent war from relapsing or degene- rating into mere savagery or barbarism. With these thoughts in my mind it occurred to me that an historical analysis of past Treaties of Peace would give some guidance for the future, that we should thereby acquire some explana- tion of the condition of Europe on the threshold of the present war, and see the position to which previous diplomatic settlements had brought us. The direct origins of the present war are to be found in the Treaty which concluded the Franco- German War, in the Balkan settlement made by the Congress of Berlin, in the lasting unrest of Poland, and in the ambitions and military dominance of Germany. None of these can be appreciated without reference to earher times. The Franco-German Preface ix War may be looked upon either as the last stage of the re-making of Germany, or as the first achievement of the new Power. This re-making was an ending of the con- stitution bequeathed by the Congress of Vienna. But what led the Congress of Vienna to frame this constitution ? It was because the Emperor had lost his position as Ruler of the Empire since the Seven Years' War, and because of the position acquired by Prussia in the Treaties of Aix-la- Chapelle and Hubertsburg. Again Prussia would never have acquired this position had not the Peace of WestphaUa admitted the practical in- dependence of the several German units ; while the particular rise of Prussia into the chief place among these units has to be traced back to the Treaty of Oliva and the dispossession of Sweden from the headship of the Baltic Powers. The Balkan settlement cannot be considered apart from the state of things left by the Crimean War and the Treaty of Paris ; and the Crimean War cannot be understood without reference to the previous history of wars and treaties of peace between Russia and the Porte. Lastly, the Partition of Poland, while contri- buting to the aggrandisement of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, brought these three great States into over close neighbourhood, joined them for a time in a common purpose, but ended by making them jealous and fearful of each other ; so that Prussia, now become Germany, could justify her vast armaments as a necessary precaution X Preface against the attack of France on one side and Russia on the other. Notwithstanding these results, the various settlements of Europe and European Colonies by the Treaties of Peace of the last Three Centuries are not all to be condemned. Some Treaties accomplished their objects ; many were useful for a time ; some would have procured a long peace but for unfortunate dynastic accidents. It seemed to me that from their success or failure some profitable lessons might be deduced ; some assistance and some warnings for the future Treaty. Then I had a second object, to see how war could be prevented and how it could be humanised and regulated if it did occur. Treaties of the eighteenth century give us lessons in regulation ; treaties of the nineteenth in humanization ; while the twentieth century began with attempts at prevention, imperfect unhappily, and too weak to stand severe strain, but not without value as guides to a more perfect scheme in the future. And so, having traced the history of the period and given a chapter to the Laws of War and their better enforcement in future, I have come in my last chapter to the suggestions to which I respectfully invite attention. W. G. F. P. July 26, 1917. CONTENTS CHAP, PAGE Preface ....... vii List of Authorities . . . . . xiii I. Conditions of a Just, Lasting, and Effective Treaty of Peace i II. Lessons Supplied by Treaties of Peace from Westphalia, 1648, to the Congress of Vienna, 1815 13 III. The Congress of Vienna and its Legacies . 35 IV. The Making of Italy and the Remaking of Germany ....... 62 V. The Treaty History of Eastern Europe . 73 VI. Extra-European Treaties of Peace . . 100 VII. Treaties Concerning the Laws of War . .112 VIII. How Treaties are Brought to an End . . 132 IX. Conclusions 141 Chronological List of Treaties . . .179 Index ........ 185 XI LIST OF AUTHORITIES TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE Ariga. ' La Guerre Sino-Japonaise.' Paris, 1896. ' La Guerre Russo-Japonaise.' 1908. Bernard. ' Four Lectures on Subjects connected with Diplomacy.' By Mountague Bernard, M.A., Chichele Professor of Inter- national Law and Diplomacy, Oxford (afterwards the Right Hon. Mountague Bernard). Macnullan & Co. London, 1868. Bluntschli. ' Le Droit International Codifi6.' Par M. Bluntschli. Trans- lated from the German by M. C. Lardy. Third Edition. Paris, 1881. Calvo. ' Le Droit International.' Par M. Charles Calvo. Third Edition. Paris, 1880. Four volumes. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. ' Signatures, Ratifications, Adhesions and Reservations to the Conventions and Declarations of the First and Second Hague Peace Conferences.' Washington, 1914. ' Nationalism and the Near East.' Oxford, 1915. Chalmers. ' Collection of Treaties between Great Britain and other Powers.' By George Chalmers. Stockdale. London, 1790. Two volumes. Darbv. 'International Tribunals.' A Collection of the Various Schemes which have been propounded ; and of Instances in the Nineteenth Century. By W. Evans Darby, LL.D., Secretary to the Peace Society. Fourth Edition. J. M. Dent & Co. London, 1904. xiv List of Authorities ' Encyclopedia Britannica.' Titles. Greece, Poland, Prussia. Grotius. ' De Jure Belli et Pads.' Hertslet, Sir Edward. ' Map of Europe by Treaty to 1891.' Four volumes. ' Map of Africa by Treaty to end of 1908.' Second Edition. Three volumes. Hertslet, Lewis. ' Treaties and Conventions between Great Britain and Foreign Powers so far as they relate to Commerce and Navigation.' By Lewis Hertslet, Librarian and Keeper of the Papers, Foreign Office. Butterworth. London, 1827. Three volumes. HiGGINS. ' The Hague Peace Conference.' By A. Pearce Higgins, LL.D. Cambridge, 1909. HOLDICH. ' Political Frontiers and Boundary Making.' By Colonel Sir Thomas Hungerford Holdich, K.C.M.G., &c. Macmillan, London, 1916. Holland. ' The Laws of War on Land.' By Sir Thomas Erskine Hol- land, K.C., Chichele Professor of International Law and Diplomacy, D.C.L., LL.D., F.B.A., &c. Oxford, 1908. Kinglake. ' The Invasion of the Crimea.' By A. W. Kinglake, 1863- 1880. Six volumes. Kluber. ' Droit des Gens Modemes de I'Europe.' Par J. L. Kluber. Second Edition. Paris, 1874. Koch. ' Histoire abr6g6e des Trait6s de Paix entre las Puissances de I'Europe depuis la paix de Westphalie.' Ouvrage entifere- ment r6fondu par F. Schoell. Brussels, 1837-1838. Four volumes. Martens, De, and De Cussy. ' Recueil de Traitds, Conventions, &c., 1760 to 1856.' Par le Baron Charles de Martens et le Baron Ferdinand de Cussy. Leipzig, 1846-1857. Seven volumes. List of Authorities xv Martens, Von. ' Receuil des Principaux Traitds,' 1 761-1790. By George Friedrich von Martens, Gottingen, 1791 ; 1791-1794, Gottingen, 1795. Five volumes. Supplement, Gottingen, 1802. Two volumes. ' New Europe, The.' Two volumes. Phillimore, The Rt. Honble. Sir Robert Joseph, Bart., D.C.L. ' Commentaries on International Law.' Third Edition. Butterworth. London, 1879 to 1885. Four volumes. Robertson and Bartholomew. ' An Historical Atlas of Modern Europe.' By G. Grant Robertson and J. G. Bartholomew. Oxford University Press, 1915. Ruhliere, Claude Carloman De. ' Histoire de 1' Anarchic de Pologne et du d^membrement.' 1807. Sarpi. ' Istoria del ConciUo Tridentino.' By Paolo Soave (Sarpi). Mendrisio, 1855. Seven volumes. SCHMAUSS, JOHANN JaCOB. • Corpus Jiu-is Publici S; Rj Academici.' Edition by Francken and Schumann. Leipzig, 1774. SCHOELL. ' Histoire des Traitfe de Paix.' By F. Schoell, being an edition and continuation of the work of Koch, whose work only went up to 1796. See Koch. SpriJner. ' Historisch-Geographischer Hand-Atlas zur Geschichte des Staaten Europ&s.' Von Dr. Karl von Sprilner. Gotha, 1854. Stubbs. ' Suzerainty,' Thesis. By Dr. Charles Stubbs. Pewtress & Co. London, 1882. United States. ' Treaties and Conventions concluded between the United States of America and other Powers since July 4, 1776.' Washington, 1889. 'Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements, between the United States of America and xvi List of Authorities other Powers, 1770-1909.' Compiled by William M. Malloy under resolution of the Senate. Washington, 1910. I am indebted to the courtesy of the American Embassy in London for the opportunity of reading these books and of perusing various uncollected treaties since 1909. Wheaton. ' Histoire des Progrte du Droit des Gens.' Fourth Edition. Leipzig, 1868-1880. Four volumes. ' Elements of International Law.' By Henry Wheaton, LL.D. Fourth English Edition, by J. Beresford Atlay. London, 1904. THREE CENTURIES OF TREATIES OF PEACE CHAPTER I CONDITIONS OF A JUST, LASTING, AND EFFECTIVE TREATY OF PEACE It would be a sorrow's crown of sorrow if this war — a war for the horrors of which no epithet, no "string of epithets, is sufficient — were to end in a transient and hollow peace, something which is little better than an armistice or at most a truce, forcing the States of the world into armed camps, with destruction instead of production for the aims of their industry and policy. Let there be some result worthy of all the courage and endurance which stand forth as bright points of light against the darkness and gloom of these three years of misery. Let us close them with a solid and lasting peace if it be possible. Unhappily, during the last three hundred years there have been many such attempts, some of them entire failures, few with more than transient success. Let the nations try again. And let their statesmen, as they try, not neglect the 2 Conditions of a Treaty of Peace counsels to be drawn from the experiences of the past. In an article in The New Europe'^ it has been well said that 'at the future Congress history and philosophy must be the handmaids of diplomacy.' We want a lasting peace. But we want a just peace. We want it because no peace but a just peace can be counted upon as lasting : but also for higher reasons. In what sense do we speak of a just peace ? Is it retributive justice or distributive justice, the suum cuique of the Roman jurists ? Both it would seem. Retribution, no doubt, there should be. It is an element not to be forgotten, and it wiU be a great gain if some penalty can be exacted, suffi- cient to act as a deterrent and to prevent powerful States from taking war in hand unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly. But the deterrent penalty should not take the form of depriving States of population and territory without regard to the wishes of the population of the ceded territory or without due consideration of geographical limits, It must be remembered that we are not, as in times past, dealing with monarchs as if they were proprietors who could be made to cede portions of their estates. The days of 'Patrimonial States ' are past. We are dealing with peoples and nations. They must suffer, no doubt, for the wrong-doing of their Governments ; but they should not be permanently severed from the » Vol. i. p. 268. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 3 country to which they are attached, nor put in subjection to an alien rule merely in order to punish their former country for engaging in war. Retribution is best exacted in money, in munitions of war, in ships, or by the destruction of fortresses and war material. Perhaps also in the punishment of those who stirred up the strife. It should be something which operates upon the existing generation and does not keep open a lasting sore. The Justice which should be the principal object in the treaty is distributive justice, justice to nations, peoples, and races ; that is, the due provision for the independence and safety of every State, small or large, the grouping of peoples according to their national desires, and the freedom of oppressed races. If there be this justice, it is an additional advantage that an element of instability is removed. If, coupled with it, there be an appropriate retri- butory judgment when 'the terrible litigation of States ' ^ is brought to its close, a security against groundless war is provided. Then comes in another cardinal virtue. Prudence. What wiU it be wise to provide and what wiU it be useless or mischievous to provide for the future ? Certain maxims should be stated as the foun- dations of treaties : I. The boundaries between States must be natural, as it is called, according to geography 1 ' War is the terrible litigation of States.' (Sir Robert Phillimore, Commentaries on International Law, vol. iii. sec. i.) 4 Conditions of a Treaty of Peace and orography. They must be well marked, strong for defence and yet not tempting to aggres- sion. Sir Thomas Holdich in his recent work gives some useful guidance.^ 2. If possible, no State composed of peoples desirous of living as one nation should be divided. 3. While, however. States and their rulers re- main ambitious and covetous, we cannot afford to forget the doctrine of the Balance of Power, which has been in the minds of diplomatists ever since the Treaty of Westphalia — ^the political maxim ' that no single State ought to be suffered to become strong enough to overbear the aggregate strength of the rest or some considerable but un- definable proportion of their aggregate strength.'^ [An alternative to this Balance of Power is found by some writers on present topics in a League of Peace, an idea which would perhaps find more favour were it not for the imsavoury memory of the Holy Alliance of 1815, as developed by the Congress of Laybach, 1821.] 4. The provisions of the treaty should be immediately and finally operative, not imposing upon States future obligations other than those of conformity with the law of nations, and of living at peace and amity with each other. 5. There should be no laying on of burdens or duties which impair the sovereignty or inde- pendence of the State. • Political Frontiers and Boundary Making. Macmillan, 1916. « Lectures on Diplomacy, by Professor Mountague Bernard {1868), p. 97 ; and see Phillimore, Commentaries on International Law. Intervention to preserve the Balance of Power, vol. i. sec. 402. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 5 For treaties which impose burdens (servitudes) upon States, or which impair or quahfy territorial sovereignty, tend to produce irritation and war, are not Ukely to be durable, and have not, with certain remarkable exceptions, endured. 6. Objections may also be made to treaties establishing a protectorate or suzerainty, whether the treaty be one made between the superior and inferior State, or be a treaty made between the superior and other independent States, whereby these other States recognise the protectorate or suzerainty of the superior over the inferior.^ There is a peculiar and subtle form of protec- torate which is especially likely to produce inter- national complications and war. It takes the form of a treaty authorising a specific interference by one State in the internal affairs of another State, either by constituting a protectorate of people of a particular nationality, or holding a particular religious faith, or by giving a guarantee of a particular constitution, or reigning family, or of succession to the throne. In religious matters some of the most striking examples have been the provisions for the Dis- sidents in Poland, and for Christians in Turkey, and as to the Jfews in Roumania. In constitutional matters, the case of Poland. As to dynasties, the Pragmatic Sanction and the Hanoverian Succession in Great Britain. Some of the same objections apply to Treaties of Guarantee. 7. Yet there are cases in which the only 1 See Holdich, p. loo. 6 Conditions of a Treaty of Peace way to take security against wanton aggression is to impose some special burden or constraint upon a State, at any rate for a time, and there are cases of servitudes where the commercial or political benefit to the dominant State is so great and the injury to the servient State so small, that they may be conveniently imposed. There are instances in which Protectorates have worked well.^ The device of a Protectorate with a corre- sponding Guarantee may prove the only way of dealing with the territories of the Turkish Empire. 8. None of the treaties imposing special obligations can be, or ought to be, expected to be perpetual. The conditions under which, and the times at which, the denunciation of such a treaty can be lawfully and properly made, are matters of the gravest importance and to be considered separately. ^ 9. There are some treaties (such as the Napoleonic treaties with Austria and Prussia) which impose such constraint upon the ceding State that no reasonable politician can expect them to endure at all, or to be otherwise than a worthless ' scrap of paper ' unless the precaution ^ is taken of securing material guarantees. These maxims apply to the substance of treaties. But historical investigation also shows the necessity of carefully considering the question of form. It has not been unusual in past times to attempt • As in the case of the Ionian Islands, and in Africa passim. But otherwise as to the Transvaal. * Vide Chapter VIII. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 7 to get rid of some points of controversy by merely passing them by, or by employing vague language, and thus postponing the evil day. For example, the Treaty of Miinster had left it uncertain what territory had passed to France under the cession of Alsace. The Treaty of Nimeguen left this still unsettled, and Louis XIV. set up ' Cham- bers of Reunion ' which annexed large tracts of territory. The matter was not set right till the Treaty of Ryswick. By the Treaty of Utrecht, Acadia was ceded to Great Britain according to its ancient boundaries. Great Britain considered that these included New Brunswick, and the dispute was one of the causes of the Seven Years' War. This criticism might be applied to several of the Articles in the Conventions of The Hague Conferences. Sometimes when there has been a cession of territory or delimitation of boundaries, the treaty- maker has been insufficiently informed upon points of geography, topography, and special condition.^ This mischief is not so likely to occur now as it was, for instance, when the greater part of North America was unsettled, and the boundaries between Great Britain and France, and, later on, the boundary between Canada and the United States had to be drawn ; ^ but if there are any dealings with territory in Africa it is a danger still to be looked for and guarded against. 1 See Holdich, chap. xi. ' There have been at least five treaties and two arbitrations as to this latter frontier. 8 Conditions of a Treaty of Peace Sufficient care has not always been given to the language of the treaty. Vague terms and conditional phrases have too often been intro- duced. The writer would, as a lawyer, say that the drafting of treaties has often been careless. The question whether the casus foederis has or has not arisen is far too often raised. It may be well to make the treaty for a term of years only. There are a number of clauses which Professor Bernard, in a passage which I am about to quote, calls ' amnesty clauses.' Some of these are common form clauses ; but as time goes on they have been modified and improved to meet altered conditions. With the tremendous changes which have been brought about by, or have accompanied, the present war, these wiU require careful overhauling, particularly in such matters as the restoration of ordinary prisoners, the dealing with prisoners or non-prisoners charged with military or common law crimes, the position of subjects of occupied territories who have had perforce to enter into relations with their conquerors during the period of occupation (as to which there are some useful provisions in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, between Japan and China), and the future rights and duties of the inhabitants of ceded territories. And, lastly, there is the unhappy conclusion that too much is not to be expected from any treaty. The best treaties are those which merely record conquests and cessions already de facto made or relinquished. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 9 The object of this essay is to consider the development of the States-system of Europe through war and peace during the last three hundred years, and especially to bring under review the Treaties of Peace which have concluded the wars of this period, with a view to seeing how far they show compliance with the maxims and prin- ciples above set forth, and how far the violation of them has produced evil results. This review is confined to Treaties of Peace. As preliminary work for this essay, other classes of treaties have been studied. But the essay would be overladen if they were to be referred to, except sometimes incidentally. A chapter, however, has been added for treaties concerning the Laws of War. The provisions on this subject are not usually to be found in Treaties of Peace. They occur in Treaties of Commerce and Navigation, or have been passed by Con- gresses summoned ad hoc, such as those of Geneva and The Hague. But upon this occasion oppor- tunity must be taken to insert them into the final treaty, and this for two reasons : first, to make war less inhuman ; secondly, to prevent war, by taking away from some nations the temptation to rely upon their superior capacity of committing atrocious acts as an element of success in war. It will be necessary to have a restatement of these laws, an appHcation of old-estabUshed principles in the form of new laws to check new developments of inhumanity, just as some Articles in the Creed were framed to meet new heresies. 10 Conditions of a Treaty of Peace and some scheme of sanction to ensure the enforce- ment of laws old and new. The analysis of a Treaty of Peace to which none but the belligerents are parties is, according to Professor Bernard, as follows : A Treaty of Peace, if you dissect it, commonly divides itself into several distinct parts. First, there are what diplomatists have called the ' general articles ' — a. declara- tion that peace is restored, and a clause or clauses of ' am- nesty ' ; the latter phrase, when used in this connection, embracing, beside what we commonly understand by it, the restitution of such conquests as are not intended to be retained and of rights which the war has suspended or inter- rupted, and the release of prisoners on both sides. Secondly, there are the provisions judged necessary to remove the causes out of which the war arose, redress the grievances complained of, and prevent the recurrence of them. This is the one essential thing which the negotiators have to do, and the pacification is hollow and imperfect if they fail to do it cleanly and effectually. Thirdly, there is the indemnity or satisfaction exacted by the stronger belligerent for the injury sustained and for the cost of the war. Lastly, pro- vision is made for the due execution of the foregoing stipula- tions. Every Treaty of Peace does not contain all of these, much less do they uniformly occur in the same order ; but of one which is complete in all its parts this is the general scheme.' ^ Thus much for a treaty of peace to which only belligerents are parties. But there are more compUcated forms. For instance, peace has not unfrequently been made under the mediation of one or more neutral States, and these have often been made parties to the treaty, and sometimes guarantors of the conditions of the treaty. As in ^ Bernard, Four Lectures on Subjects Connected with Diplomacy. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace ii comparatively recent times, the Treaty of 1850 between Prussia and Denmark was stated to be concluded with the concurrence of Great Britain as mediating Power. Her plenipotentiary, as well as the plenipotentiaries of Prussia and Denmark, signed the treaty. Other instances are the Treaty of Teschen, 1779, between Maria Theresa, Empress-Queen of Hungary, and Frederick II., King of Prussia, with certain ancillary treaties, where the mediating Powers were France and Russia, who guaranteed all the conventions and stipulations ; also the Treaty of Szistowe, 1791, between the Emperor and Turkey, which was declared to have been concluded under the mediation of Great Britain, France, and the States General. Sometimes the mediation is informal, and its only indication lies in the choice of some city in the neutral State as the place of its conclusion. Thus the war between the United States and Spain was concluded by a treaty made at Paris in 1898. And the treaty which closed the recent war between Russia and Japan was made, as it was understood, under the good offices of the United States, at Portsmouth, in the State of New Hampshire. Sometimes the settlement of peace between beUigerents has been supposed to involve such important questions affecting the Balance of Power that the greater neutral nations have been allowed to intervene and the treaty has been settled at a Congress. Though the Peace of 12 Conditions of a Treaty of Peace Westphalia directly affected only the relations of the German States inter se and with their immediate neighbours France and Sweden/ no European Power was absent from the Congress, except England, Poland, Russia, and Turkey; and even so, the Kings of England and Poland and the Grand Duke of Muscovy, as Allies of one or other of the belligerent Powers, were included in the Treaty of Osnabriick. Every European Power except Turkey was represented at the Congress of Vienna, in 1815. The Crimean War only directly involved Russia, Turkey, Great Britain, France, and Sardinia, but Austria and Prussia were represented at the Congress, and participated in the Treaty of Paris in 1856. Great Britain, France, Austria, and Germany were all parties to the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, which closed the war between Russia and Turkey. * Spain and the States General had made a separate Peace in the previous January. The city of Basel and the Swiss Cantons had been declared free and exempt from the Empire and its Courts in the previous year. This is recited in the Treaties. CHAPTER II LESSONS SUPPLIED BY TREATIES OF PEACE FROM WESTPHALIA, 1648, TO THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA, 1815 Writers on public law» when they discuss the subject of treaties generally, begin with the Treaty of Westphalia^ of 1648, that is, the Treaties of Miinster and Osnabriick, which to- gether form the Treaty of Westphalia, that of Miinster being the more important Of it, among other things, the late Sir Robert Phillimore, the writer's father, says that it ' recog- nised as its foundation that the Balance of Power was necessary for the safety of nations, and though the equilibrium protected by it related chiefly, if not exclusively, to the German nations of Europe, it gave stability to many principles of international law.' ^ Throughout the rest of the seventeenth, and 1 Koch, in his Histoire des TraitSs de Paix ; Schoell, who revised and continued the work of Koch ; Wheaton in his Histoire des Progris du Droit des 6ens ; Sir Robert Phillimore, Com- mentaries on International Law, vol. ii., chap, vi., and the late Professor Mountague Bernard, in his valuable Lectures on Diplomacy, make this treaty their starting point. * Commentaries on International Law, vol. ii. sec. 45. 13 14 Lessons from Treaty of Westphalia the eighteenth century to the wars of the French Revolution, this treaty was never forgotten. It was mentioned, revived, and ratified in most European treaties of this period. In one sense the Congress of Vienna marks the close of a period, and we may consider that the treaties after that date fall into a second division. In another sense we may trace three divisions : From Westphalia in 1648 to the recognition of American Independence in 1783, little considera- tion was paid to anything except the rights and interests of sovereigns and reigning families. The second period, from 1783 to 1859, i^ marked by increased recognition of the rights of States. Since 1859, we have been in a third period, in which little regard is paid to the supposed rights and interests of individual sovereigns or reigning families, and a new principle has arisen, viz., the rights of nationalities, not necessarily races, but populations whose languages, literature, habits and customs, and — it may be — religious worship, are of one piece, and such as to distinguish them, from surrounding populations. Long ago as it is since 1648, there are lessons to be drawn from the Treaty of Westphalia, and from the Treaty of Oliva in 1660, which is, for the nations bordering on the Baltic, as important a starting point as the Treaty of Westphalia is for Central Europe. And lessons of encourage- ment — 'but, unhappily, more often of warning — Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 15 are to be drawn from these treaties, and all the great treaties which succeeded each other with almost bewildering rapidity up to the time of the French Revolution. Some assistance is to be got even from a con- sideration of the hasty patchwork treaties dictated by the Directory, or by Napoleon, to the Sovereigns and States of the Continent. But it is not my purpose to be archaic, and more help is to be got from a consideration of the settlement made by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and from the treaties and public acts of the century which has now elapsed since that memorable date. Let us, then, briefly run through the treaties of the earlier period. First, the Treaty of Westphaha, 1648. This treaty brought to a conclusion the Thirty Years' War which began, as nearly as possible, three hundred years ago. It was the first dynastic war of our period. In 161 8 the state of Europe generally was as follows : England and Scotland had recently come under the reign of one Sovereign, James I. of England and VI. of Scotland. France was a compact country, but she was still without Artois and French Flanders, Franche Comt6, Rousillon, Alsace, and Lorraine.^ The Empire of Charles V. had been divided upon his abdication. His descendants held Spain, 1 Spruner's map of Europe during the Thirty Years' War gives an admirable picture. i6 Lessons from Treaty of Westphalia Naples and Sicily, Sardinia, the Milanese, Rousillon, Franche Comte, and the Spanish Netherlands, and for a tinae, Portugal. The descendants of his brother Ferdinand had the hereditary dominions of Austria, Upper and Lower Austria, Styria, The Tjnrol, Carinthia, Carniola, and various territories scattered through- out Germany. They also held the Empire itself, and claimed to hold by hereditary right the Kingdom of Bohemia. They had besides so much of Hungary as the Turk had not despoiled them of. Italy, so far as it was not under Spanish rule, was divided between the Papal States, Savoy and Piedmont ruled by the Count of Savoy, certain Duchies, and the Republics of Venice and Genoa ; Corsica was ruled by Genoa. The United Provinces of Holland, Zeeland, etc., had established their independence of Spain and were styled diplomatically the States General. Germany was subject to the Emperor and was in theory of law one nation ruled by the Emperor and its Diet. But the Electors, Dukes, Land- graves, and so forth, were great feudatory Princes asserting rights against the Emperor, and often even their independence. Switzerland was in existence, but as a smaller and more loosely knit confederation than that which we now know. Sweden had been in subjection to Denmark, and her southern provinces were still Danish. She had, however, Finland, and she and Poland Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 17 divided between them the eastern shore of the Baltic. Denmark and Norway formed one kingdom. , Poland, united with the Grajid Duchy of Lithuania, was a great kingdom stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea, and having Prussia Proper as a feudatory. The kingship was, or had become, elective, the State Church was Roman Catholic, and the combination of these two factors had led to a prolonged strife with Sweden. The Poles had elected the Swedish Heir-Apparent, who had become a Roman. The Swedes would not let him succeed to the Throne of Sweden, but chose another member of the Royal Family ; where- upon a War of Succession broke out only to be terminated by the Peace of Oliva in 1660. Russia, separated by Sweden and Poland from the rest of Europe, was of little importance to the other States. Venice Held Dalmatia, the Ionian Islands, and the Morea. The Turk had the rest of Europe, including the greater part of what is now known as the King- dom of Hungary. But an independent Christian prince had lately arisen in Transylvania. In the East Indies the Portuguese had extensive settlements from which the Dutch were gradually driving them. The Dutch also had the Cape of Good Hope. In America France had begun her settlements in Acadia and Canada. i8 Lessons from Treaty of Westphalia England had made a footing in New England and in Virginia. Mexico, Florida, Central America, and South America were subject to Spanish rule either as directly Spanish or as Portuguese. In this state of things religious persecution, launched under the auspices of the Emperor in Bohemia, led to an insurrection at Prague in 1618, and to the Bohemians, on the death of their Emperor-King, claiming that the Throne was an elective one and choosing, instead of the new Emperor, the Elector Palatine, son-in-law of James I. Then the war began. The Elector was soon ejected from Bohemia, and his hereditary domi- nions were overrun by Spanish troops from the Netherlands. The Protestant States in Germany took up the cause of the Elector, partly on religious grounds, partly because it did not suit them to have a Prince of the Empire humbled. They formed a League under the King of Denmark which was in its turn defeated. Then Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, descended upon Germany from the north and carried all before him till his death at the battle of Liitzen. The Swedish Army remained in Germany and the contest went on with varjdng success. In the meanwhile the Spaniards had gone to war with the States General. France allied herself with the States General, sent succour to the Pro- testant German States, and invaded Lorraine and Alsace. Portugal revolted from Spain, and there was an insurrection in Catalonia. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 19 ' At last the war was brought to a close by the exhaustion of aU concerned. Negotiations began in 1645, but the Peace was not concluded till 1648. It had the merit of settling a long and bloody war. It recognised the possession by France of Alsace (with some limitations) and of the three Bishoprics in Lorraine, a possession which lasted till the Franco-German War of 1870-71 — upwards of two hundred years. It principally affected Germany, which it pacified. It did good inasmuch as it pacified, and inasmuch as it made an advance towards religious toleration ; and it made the absolute dominion of the Emperor over the whole of Germany impossible, and in that way con- tributed to the Balance of Power. But its mischief was that it established a number of Princes and States in an anomalous position of quasi-independence, most of them so weak that they could not resist the encroachments of France or Sweden, and yet unwilling, through mutual jealousies, to combine for the common interests of Germany. And a still greater evil. It gave right to France and to Sweden — and, later, to Great Britain and Russia — in their capacity of guarantors of the treaty, to interfere with the internal affairs of Germany, taking to themselves allies out of Germany against the common interests of the bulk of the country. It was framed largely in the personal interests of sovereigns and d5aiasties, and, except in the matter of religious toleration, paid scant regard to the interests of the people. 20 Lessons from Treaty of Westphalia It recognised, the independence of the States General of the United Provinces of the Nether- lands, but it sacrificed the commercial interests of the Spanish Netherlands by closing the Scheldt. This unfortunate provision/ dictated by com- mercial jealousy, was a constant source of irritation between the States General and the Sovereign of the Spanish — or, as they became later, the Austrian — Netherlands. We shall find it come under repeated discussion, and finally become a cause of conflict between the Emperor and the States General in 1785. The Treaty of Westphalia left two Powers at war — France and Spain — and they so remained till the Treaty of the Pyrenees of 1659. That treaty had one valuable provision. By it Spain ceded to France its possessions north of the Pyrenees, and from that time forward the boundary between France and Spain has followed the geographical line furnished by that chain, and the wisdom of compliance with the first maxim of prudence has been demonstrated.^ But on the other frontiers there was less cer- tainty. Franche Comte (now the Departments of Doubs, Jura, and Haute Savoie) went back to Spain, to be restored again by the Peace of Aix- ' Le 14° article est devenu fameux ; il porte que les rivieres de I'Escaut, comme aussi les canaux de Sas, Zwyn, et autres bouches de mer y aboutissantes, seront tenus clos du c6t6 des Provinces-Unies. Cet artic'.e, qui ferma I'Escaut, a ruin6 le commerce d'Anvers, et a donn6 matifere aux difi^rends entre I'empereur et les fitats g^n&aux qui 6clat6rent en 1785. (Koch, vol. i. p. 84.) 8 Vide supra, p. 3. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 21 la-Chapelle in 1668 ; while, as between France and the Spanish Netherlands, a series of advances and retrogressions on the part of France are to be found provided for in the Treaties of Aix- la-Chapelle, 1668 ; Nimeguen, 1678 ; Ryswick, 1679 ; Utrecht, 1713. From this last date the unfortunate Spanish Netherlands were submitted to a succession of Barrier Treaties so-called, under the terms of which the principal fortresses on the French frontier were occupied by Dutch military forces and subject to Dutch military control. A con- dition of things which to the statesmen of the period seemed the height of political wisdom, but which left the unfortunate inhabitants in the most anomalous position, pointed to the Low Countries as the natural theatre of war — ' the cockpit of Europe,' as it has been called — and is in some degree responsible for the sufferings of Belgium in the present War. There was another clause in the Treaty of the Pyrenees which was responsible for much bloodshed. Louis XIV. was to marry the Infanta of Spain, and inasmuch as the throne of France descended, according to the Salic Law, to and through males only, but the throne of Spain might be occupied by a king descended from a female, there was a possibihty of the same person becoming entitled, according to the constitutional laws of the two countries, to the thrones of both. But it was agreed by the treaty as between the 22 Lessons from Treaty of Westphalia two nations that this should not be. It was a treaty between the two nations only, but it operated as a warning to the other nations of Europe ; and the effort of Louis XIV. to provide that one of his grandsons should sit on the throne of Spain with a possibihty of his ultimately succeeding, if one sickly child died, to the throne of France, led to the Wars of the Spanish Suc- cession, which were only concluded by the Peace of Utrecht, 171 3. This was the second great dynastic contest of the period. One may pause for a moment upon the Treaty of Utrecht. It is taken by many writers as the beginning of a second period of treaties. It was just over two hundred years old when the present war broke out. This treaty settled the boundaries of France except in respect of Lorraine, the Duke of Lorraine being a Prince of the Empire, but as Due de Bar, a feudatory of France, and practically dependent upon France, which already owned in Sovereignty the Enclaves made by the three Bishoprics, Metz, Toul, and Verdun. The treaty, avowedly framed to secure the Balance of Power, made it a fixed rule that the Crowns of France and Spain should never be on the same head. It was the attempt to tamper with this rule by Guizot in 1846,1 which alienated Great Britain from the Government of Louis Philippe and, in the opinion of some writers, led to the fall of that monarch. The Treaty of Utrecht was one of the first ^ See Phillimore, International Law, vol. iii. sees. 537, 538. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 23 treaties which dealt with the Colonial possessions in America — France ceding Nova Scotia (Acadia) and Newfoundland to England, but reserving Cape Breton ; this reservation being an instance of non-compliance with the first maxim and a further cause of trouble. On the other hand, there were two infractions of the fourth and fifth maxims of prudence.^ Great Britain imposed upon France an obligation or servitude which impaired her sovereignty. It was a term of the treaty that the fortifications of Dunkirk should be rased and the port fiUed up.^ Louis XIV. at once began to make a new harbour at Mardick, a proceeding which was considered by Great Britain to be an act of bad faith. It was also supposed, and apparently not without reason, that the clause as to Dunkirk itself was not being complied with. It was accordingly renewed in the Treaty of the Triple AlUance at The Hague in 171 7 ; and Great Britain and the States General were authorised to send commissaries to see that the work was done. But in the Treaty of Aix-la-ChapeUe, 1748, we find it provided that Dunkirk should remain fortified landwards, while seawards things should remain on the footing of the ancient treaties. The matter comes up again in the Treaty of Paris in 1763, and it is not till the Treaty of Versailles, 1783, that Great Britain desists from * Vide, supra, p. 4. * Article 9. 24 Lessons from Treaty of Westphalia this requirement. By Article zy, Great Britain consented to the abrogation of all the Articles in all the former treaties concerning Dunkirk, a remarkable instance of the futility of such a clause for all purposes of good and its power as a source of trouble. Another infraction of the same maxim was a clause concerning America, one which has had a remarkable history. France was to have the right of fishing and drying fish upon certain parts of the coast of Newfoundland, and other rights of fishery in adjacent waters .^ This provision has been renewed as often as there has been war between France and Great Britain and peace has followed. It is renewed in the Treaty of Paris, 1763 ; ^ in the Treaty of Versailles, 1783, with some alterations as to limits ; ^ and it was again renewed at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, since which date there has happUy been peace between the two countries. It cannot be denied that the provision has led to some difficulties, and that it has not been easy in this matter for Great Britain to enforce compliance with this provision upon its colonists ' in Newfoundland. Very drastic action, in order to preserve the peace, was taken on one occasion by the naval ofiicer in command— so drastic that it was ultimately held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that he had exceeded his constitutional rights.* But the world cannot but » Article 13. ^ Article 5. » Articles 5 and 6. * Walker v. Baird, Law Reports, 1892, Appeal Cases, p. 491 Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 25 be grateful for a provision which has created that fine body of Breton seamen so well described in the novels of Pierre Loti. It is unnecessary to trouble the readers of this essay with the details of the various Treaties of Alliance, Counter- AlUance, and Peace which foUow in bewildering succession from the Treaty of Utrecht to the French Revolution. At different times Great Britain and all the Powers of the Continent — except perhaps the Papal States, Switzerland, and Turkey — find them- selves at war with, or in alliance with, every other Power. The permutations and combinations of alliance or hostility afford material for a mathe- matician. Certain principles may be deduced. The regard paid to dynastic considerations and extended not only to the reigning family, but to rights in reversion of other princely families, at the expense of national and geographical con- siderations, led to much bloodshed, brought about constant shiftings of territory to the detriment of the unhappy populations and to the great economic loss of Europe and, one may add, of North America. The undoing of this mischief has been the work of the third period from 1859 to the present day, and is still incomplete. The territories which have been principally submitted to this shifting process are, as already stated, the Spanish Netherlands, the States of Germany, the States comprised in the present Kingdom of Italy, the lands lying round the Baltic, and Nova Scotia (Acadia) and Cape Breton. 26 Lessons from Treaty of Westphalia In Alsace the feudal rights left to German Princes over various territories in that province furnished a pretext, if not a motive, for the outbreak of war between the First Coalition and France in 1791.^ As to Lorraine, the Duke of that country, after seeing his territory almost in constant occupation by France, or by the Emperor, finally ceded his State to Stanislas Lesczinski, who, because he was the father-in-law of Louis XV., and because he ceased to be the King of Poland, was to have the Duchy for his life, with reversion to France ; while, on the other hand, the House of Lorraine was to be indemnified with the Grand Duchy of Tuscany upon the death of the reigning Duke. Tuscany, and the Duchies of Parma and Piacenza, Modena and Lucca, and the Islands of Sicily and Sardinia, are treated as counters in the game, while the rival Powers contend over the Spanish Succession and the respective claims of claimants to the Spanish Monarchy ; and, later on, over the Succession to the Empire and the Austrian possessions. One of the most remarkable instances of the hopelessness of providing by treatyf or future events' is shown by the fate of the Pragmatic Sanction. By this, the Emperor Charles VI. endeavoured to provide for the succession of his eldest daughter, Maria Theresa, to all the possessions of the House of Austria, with the expectation that her husband would be elected Emperor. As far as treaties could bind States and Sovereigns, this was done. ' Koch, vol. i. p. 519. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 27 Koch has an interesting paragraph which vsdll bear quotation : II eut grand soin de faire approuver ce rSglement par les £tats provinciaux de tous les pays h^rdditaires d'Autriche ; de meme que par les fiUes de I'empereur 'Joseph et par leurs ^poux, les ^lecteurs de Saxe et de Baviere.i II obtint succes- sivement la garantie de sa pragmatique sanction de la plupart des puissances de I'Europe. La premiere qui la donna fut le roi d'Espagne ; il la promit par I'art. 12 du traits de Vienne, du 25 avril, 1725. L'imperatrice de Russie prit le meme engagement par son accession k 1' alliance de Vienne du 6 aout, 1726 ; il fut re- nouvele dans I'accession de Charles VI. k I'alliance entre la Suede et la Russie, ainsi que dans I'alliance de Copenhague, que I'empereur, la Russie et la Danemarck sign^rent le 26 mai, 1732, et par laqueUe la demiere puissance donna la meme garantie. L'electeur de Bavi^re, personellement int^ress6 dans la succession autrichienne, avait reconnu la pragmatique sanction, par I'aUiance que lui et l'electeur de Cologne avaient conclue avec I'empereur, le ler septembre, 1726. L'electeur de Cologne avait r^itere sa garantie par I'art. 3 de son alliance avec I'empereur, du 26 aout, 1731. L'engagement du roi de Prusse, contracts par le traite de Wusterhausen, du 12 octobre, 1726, paraissait annuls par la non-execution de ce traits. Le trait6 de Vienne, du 19 mars, 1731, assura k Charles VI. la garantie de la Grande-Bretagne et des fitats-g6n6raux. L'empire germanique avait reconnu la sanction pragmatique par un avis de 11 Janvier, 1732.2 Enfin Louis XV. avait donne la garantie la plus formelle de cet ordre de succession, par I'art. 10 de la paix de Vienne du 18 novembre, 1738. Toutes ces garanties furent insufi&santes parce que I'empereur avait neglig6 les vrais moyens d'assurer sa suc- 1 La renonciation de la fille aiii6e de Joseph ler se trouve dans Schmauss, C. j. g. ac, p. 1780 ; celle de la cadette, p. 1861. * Pachner Reichsschlusse, torn, iv., p. 393, Schmauss, C. f. publ. ac., p. 1400. 28 Lessons from Treaty of Westphalia cession a sa fille, qui 6taient des finances bien administrdes, et une armee complete et exercee.^ Upon the death of Charles VI. Prussia invaded Silesia. The Elector of Bavaria was elected Emperor, and a League was formed against Maria Theresa, many of the guarantors of the Pragmatic Sanction becoming members of the League. This was the third great dynastic con- test. When peace was concluded at Aix-la- Chapelle, Prussia had gained Silesia, and the Elector of Bavaria had kept the Imperial Crown till his death. The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748, was, as Mr. Holland Rose has recently observed,^ an inconclusive peace. It left most of the Great Powers engaged dissatisfied. It had a specially harmful effect upon our North American Colonies, who are said never to have forgotten their abandon- ment — as they considered it — by the Mother Country when Louisburg was retroceded to France. It was not like the Peace of Utrecht, which really did for the time settle matters, putting a check to the preponderance of the Bourbon Family. After the Treaty of Utrecht, if Charles VI. had had a son, peace might have endured till the Declaration of Independence by the United States. Indeed, there might have been no such Declaration of Independence, for the Colonies might have had no serious cause of friction with the Mother Country. The coming difficulty of 1 Koch, vol. i. p. 271. ' The New Europe, vol. ii. p. 130. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 29 the Austrian Succession could not have been foreseen at the date of the Treaty of Utrecht, and it might have established a Balance of Power that would have endured indefinitely. But the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, though it concluded the third dynastic contest, left its after- math ; for it was a peace without victory, at any rate, as far as concerned two of the combatants — France and Great Britain. Great Britain was victorious on the sea and over the seas, but France had had great successes by land. Austria also was not so beaten by Prussia as to give up the hope of recovering Silesia. It remained, therefore, an inconclusive peace, leading shortly to the Seven Years' War. There was one humorous thing in the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. It was supposed to termi- nate a war which never would have arisen if the Sovereigns and States that had guaranteed the Pragmatic Sanction had kept even a part of the obligations which such a guarantee imposes. A guarantor, naturally, is one who takes some active step to ensure that which he has guaranteed. But the question of guarantee would never have arisen if some of the guarantors had not been the active breakers of the compact. Yet, after the futility of this guarantee had been demonstrated, we find the Treaty of Aix-la- Chapelle repeating the guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, and adding one for the Hanoverian dynasty of Great Britain ! The next peace, that after the Seven Years' 30 Lessons from Treaty of Westphalia War, produced treaties of a more durable nature. That of Hubertsburg, 1763, recognised the fait accompli, left Prussia now firmly established in Silesia, treating on equal terms with Austria, and from this time forward sharing the hegemony of Germany, a state of things which, but for the temporary Napoleonic Confederation of the Rhine, may be said to have endured tUl the Battle of Sadowa and the Treaty of Prague in 1866. The corresponding Treaty of Paris recognised the final conquest of Canada by Great Britain from France.^ It was an incident of the treaty that France, under an arrangement with Spain, retired from Louisiana, and thus gave up all her posses- sions on the North American Continent. The Spanish position in the eastern half of the North American Continent remained in a state of flux. Louisiana, taken over from the French to the great grief of its inhabitants— one of the worst instances of a transfer of a population as if they were cattle— was conditionally retro- ceded to the French Republic in 1800, and by that Repubhc to the United States in 1803. Florida, by the Treaty of Paris, was ceded by Spain to Great Britain and recovered by Spain in 1783. It was treated like a counter in a game. Spain ceded Florida to the United States in 1819. On the other hand Minorca, which, for all geographical reasons and in obedience to the » With special provisions (Article 4) for liberty to ' the new Roman Catholic subjects ' of the King of Great Britain to follow their own religious worship. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 31 first maxim, ought never to have been severed from the other JBalearic Islands, was restored to Spain and never again ceded to Great Britain. On the whole, most of that which was settled by these treaties after the Seven Years' War has endured, some of it for a hundred years, and some to the present day. The Treaties of Versailles of 1783 are epoch- making treaties, but as they are treaties of recog- nition of conquests rather than of stipulations de future, they only require a passing notice. They established the Independence of the United States, but France, which had assisted the United States, got little benefit. The status quo as to her colonies was preserved ; she was released by Great Britain from the obligations as to Dunkirk, and she was left with a National Debt which became a factor in the subsequent Revolution. The other points to notice are : that Canada, the recent conquest of Great Britain, remained faithful to her, that an attempt was made to draw a boundary line across North America through unknown and unoccupied lands, with the usual results.^ The right of fishing in British waters was conceded to the inhabitants of the United States in terms which have led to dispute and arbitration ; and there was a provision that both countries should enjoy the use of the River Mississippi^ for navigation. This may have • Vide supra, p. 7. ' ' Article 8. The navigation of the River Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall for ever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain, and the citizens of the United States.' 32 Lessons from Treaty of Westphalia been the precursor of the valuable Act of the Congress of Vienna as to the free navigation of the Rhine and other rivers. Towards the close of the eighteenth century an alteration, which has had far-reaching conse- quences, was made in the Map of Europe. It was effected by armed force, though it can hardly be said that there was any war. By a process in three stages the Kingdom of Poland was obliterated from the list of European States ; these were what are known as the Three Partitions of Poland, that is, of the Kingdom of Poland with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania annexed to it. The First Partition was made by agreement between Russia, Prussia, and Austria in 1772 ; the Second by Russia and Prussia in 1793 ; and the Third by the three States dividing the residue of Poland between them in 1795. It was not without its importance that the two latter Partitions occurred shortly after the outbreak of the French Revolution, and just as the ex- pansive force thereby acquired by the French nation was impelled toward foreign conquest. Some of the results attained in the First and Second Partitions may have been in them- selves desirable. They may have made for better racial and national arrangements, and for a more natural and stable distribution of territory. These points wiU be further elaborated in the next chapter. But whatever may be the ad- vantages of the results obtained, the means by which they were obtained were wholly un- Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 33 justifiable, and established precedents of arbitrary spoliation which in time became disastrous to two, at least, of the spoliators — Prussia and Austria. The wars consequent on the French Revolution and the successes of the Directory and of Napoleon, produced a crop of temporary French annexa- tions and treaties, which were rather truces than instruments with any hope of permanence, and so ephemeral that they need not be recapitulated. They had, it is true, considerable bearing upon the internal rearrangements of Germany, as they produced the secularization of ecclesiastical principalities, and the mediatization of the minor sovereigns, arrangements which were preserved at the ultimate settlement by the Congress of Vienna. Fleeting also as these treaties were, they left their mark in Italy. The Treaty of Campo Formio, 1797, divided the territories of Venice between Austria and France. Austria got Venice itself, and for a time part of Dalmatia, and she kept this and got the rest of Dalmatia at the Congress of Vienna. It was a thoroughly un- warranted and unjust acquisition. It proved, so far as Venice and her Italian territory was con- cerned, a source of misery to the inhabitants, of perpetual irritation to the rest of Italy, and an important factor in the defeat of Austria by Prussia in 1866 — a most effective moral against unjust aggrandisement .1 1 Vide infra, Chapters III and IV. 34 Lessons from Treaty of Westphalia The other way in which Italy was affected was by the creation of the Kingdom of Italy, recognised by Austria at the Peace of Presburg in 1805. It was not such a Kingdom of Italy as we now know, for the Two Sicilies and other territories were excluded, but it first gave the idea that Italy might be a nation and not a ' mere geographical expression.' There is nothing further to discuss till the defeat of Napoleon and the Treaty of Peace made at the Congress of Vienna, in 1815. CHAPTER III THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA AND ITS LEGACIES The great settlement at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 is the precedent which must be in the minds of those who will frame our Peace. From it the most important lessons of encouragement and of warning are to be drawn. It concluded a period of twenty-three years of warfare. Napoleon I. had taken up the conquests of the French Revolution. He had added Holland, Belgium, Germany to the Rhine, a large part of Northern Italy, and the lUyrian Provinces to France. He held another large part of Italy as a separate kingdom. His brother-in-law was made King of Naples. He had formed the Confedera- tion of the Rhine, in which others of his relations were made rulers of some of the confederated States. This confederation included all Germany that was not annexed to France nor left to Prussia or Austria, both of which States were deprived of much of their territory. The Swiss Republic was under his domination. He had made his brother King of Spain, and at one time held for him a great part of Spain and Portugal. His 35 $6 Congress of Vienna and its Legacies checks had come in Spain and when he invaded Russia. He had been gradually beaten back till at last France was invaded and he abdicated in 1814. The Bourbons had been restored and Napoleon left to content himself with the Empire of Elba. While the Congress of Vienna was sitting, he burst forth, returned to France, drove out the Bourbons and restored the Empire for a Hundred Days, till he was again beaten when leading his army to re-conquer Belgium at Waterloo. France was once more occupied by the Allies, the Bourbons were again restored, and the work of the Congress proceeded to its completion. The consequent mass of arrangements was enormous. The main Treaty of Vienna of June 9, 1815, has 121 Articles. The diplomatic instruments in connection with it fiU 227 pages of Hertslet.i The broad outlines of the principal matters disposed of are as follows : I. The establishment of the German Con- federation. As already stated, the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 had established the German Electors and Princes on a footing of independence and half- sovereignty, still subordinate to the Emperor, parts of the Empire for which the Emperor could make war or peace, and with Imperial Tribunals. The success of Prussia under Frederic IL * Hertslet, E%irope, vol. i. pp. 60-286. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 37 against Maria Theresa, Sovereign of Austria and Hungary, had made Prussia a sharer in the leadership of Germany. Napoleon's Confedera- tion of the Rhine, and the abandonment by the Emperor of his Imperial rights, had destroyed the old Empire. But this dissolution was of recent date, and some idea of unity had been preserved by the Confederation of the Rhine. Accordingly, in lieu of a German Empire the German Confederation was established under the dual leadership of Austria and Prussia with an Assembly or Diet meeting at Frankfort. For common military purposes there were to be certain federal fortresses ; and a quota of soldiers was to be supplied by each of the federated States. Envoys might be accredited to, and sent, by the Confederation, and the several States of the Confederation guaranteed to each other the safety of the confederated territories. It has been the fashion to ridicule the Con- federation as slow, clumsy, and ineffective, but it saved Germany from attack, while its very defects gave it the merit of being unaggressive. It suffered a temporary internal convulsion during the Revolutionary period, 1848-1851, and it may be charged with having become a kind of Mutual Insurance Society of Princes against the growing dissatisfaction of their subjects, and with beingja hindrance to political develop- ment and colonial expansion. But it kept the peace. And as far as one can see, if it had 38 Congress of Vienna and its Legacies remained neither would there have been the Franco-German War, 1870-1871, nor the present War. The short history of the dissolution of the German Confederation is as follows : One of the peculiarities of the League was that certain sovereigns entered into it in respect of their German possessions, but were not members of it in respect of other non-German territories. As regards Austria, not only the separate Kingdom of Hungary and the Provinces, which have sometimes been styled the Kingdom of Slavonia, but also her Italian possessions formed no part of the Confederation. The same thing was true of her share of Poland, and of Prussia's share of Poland. The King of Holland was also Grand Duke of Luxemburg and Duke of Lim- burg, and the King of Hanover was also King of Great Britain. These latter were personal unions, not unions of the Crowns, and could be (as they have since been) sundered, the inheritance under Germanic law following to males only, and under Dutch and British law to males and females. There remains the case of Denmark. The King of Denmark entered into the German Confederation as Grand Duke of Holstein. There were entities known as the Duchy of Schleswig and the Duchy of Holstein, which had frequently been united, and sometimes held by a member of the Royal Family of Denmark other than the King. But for some time the Duchies had either reverted Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 39 to or become merged in the Crown, like our Duchy of Lancaster, or had been held by the King in personal union. The peculiar position of Holstein as part of Germany, and yet subject to the Danish king, had already led to armed interference.^ When the death of Frederick VII. brought about a disputed succession. King Christian succeeded without question to the Throne of Denmark, but the Duke of Augustenburg claimed under the Salic Law that he was the rightful heir to both Duchies. The German Liberals had been much dis- contented with the rule of Denmark. Schleswig was not part of the Confederation, but a portion of it was German in race and language, while the other part was Danish. There was a feeling on the German side that the two Duchies should be kept united and, if possible, severed from Denmark. The Diet of Frankfort took up the cause of the Duke of Augustenburg, and decreed what was called a Federal Execution, that was, an occupation by the military forces of the Con- federation, preserving the territory in dispute in medio till there had been a judicial decision. This arrangement did not suit Austria and Prussia, and they interfered, invading not only Holstein, as to which there was some case, but 1 By Prussia on behalf of the German Confederation. This was brought to a close by the Treaty of July 2, 1850, between Prussia in her own name and for the German Confederation on the one part, and Denmark on the other part, with Great Britam as mediating Power. 40 Congress of Vienna and its Legacies also Schleswig, which formed no part of the German Confederation. This led to war with Denmark, the conquest of both Duchies, and their cession to Austria and Prussia. Disputes between these two coun- tries as to the ultimate disposition of the Duchies led to attempts by Austria and Prussia to utilise the Confederation for their respective views. War broke out in 1866. Austria was defeated, and, by the Treaty of Prague, allowed the German Confederation to be dissolved, and the formation of a new North German Confedera- tion under Prussia — Prussia, at the same time, annexing several of the German States. The next step was for the North German Confederation to conclude Treaties of Alliance with all the South German States except Austria and the little Principality of Liechtenstein ; and when Germany so constituted became involved in war with France and was on the road to victory, the South German States came into a new unity called the German Empire, that Empire which we now know. The old Germany of the German Confedera- tion of 1815, less the German territories of Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg and Limburg, but aug- mented by Schleswig and the Polish provinces of Prussia, and the acquisition from France of Alsace-Lorraine, presided over by Prussia (her- self far the largest State of the Empire), has become, instead of a somewhat passive organ, the most potent and aggressive instrument of Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 41 war. The German Confederation lasted till it became aggressive, then its aggression brought about its dissolution.^ To return to the Congress of Vienna. It established the affairs of Switzerland on a satisfactory footing. The position had been anomalous. There was the Swiss Confederation Proper, which itself included certain towns of the German Empire. There were the independent but allied Republics of Geneva, the Grison League and the Valais, and other territories in a special position. ^ These were now all associated in one Federation, and the Great Powers, who signed the Treaty at Vienna, promised ' solemnly to acknowledge and guarantee perpetual neu- trality of the Helvetic Body.' ' The Swiss Con- federation, by public declaration, accepted that promise. Further to protect Geneva, a portion of Savoy was neutralised. That is to say, it was provided that certain provinces ' shall form a part of the neutrality of Switzerland as it is recognised and guaranteed by the Powers.' ^ It has not been thought necessary to dwell upon the various changes of territory between the German States inter se, which occupy Articles 15 to 52 of the Treaty of the Congress of Vienna. Saxony lost much territory in favour of Prussia. Prussia, having gained in other respects, made some cessions to Hanover. Bavaria gained, and there were other minor arrangements. ' Neufchatel retained a sort of subjection to Prussia till 1857. » Article 3 of the Treaty of Paris of November 20, 1815, performing and extending the provisions of Article 92 of the Congress of Vienna. 42 Congress of Vienna and its Legacies Great Britain acquired in Europe Malta and Heligoland, which latter island she had taken from Denmark during the war ; and she acquired or retained a number of colonies and foreign possessions, some previously French the others Dutch, which she had taken from the French after Holland had been seized by France. Large as these acquisitions were, they have led to no unrest except in one case, and they have remained unquestioned. Except in the one instance, the comparatively few French and Dutch affected have seen no reason to complain, and have not complained ; and we may proudly say that the native inhabitants have been, at least, as well treated as they would have been under any other flag. The reservation must be made as to the Cape Colony, where the Dutch element has, as we all know, not unfrequently come into conflict with English ideas of government. It may be said that it was not till the present War that the union of hearts has been finally cemented. France had been the great conqueror and, being worsted in the end, lost all her conquests. In 1814 she was put back to the limits of 1792, with some additions on the N.E. frontier and in Savoy. After Waterloo, she was put back to her old limits, now called those of 1790 ; and, though the frontier on the north-eastern side has never been satis- factory, she has remained content within these limits except in the matter of Savoy and Nice, which she acquired in i860 by peaceful means. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 43 She suffered in her colonies, having to cede Mauritius and the Seychelles Islands, Tobago ^ and Santa Lucia to Great Britain, and her former half of San Domingo to Spain. A great moral against wanton aggression. Spain gave some territory to Portugal, and the old boundary line between the two countries was restored and has remained to the present day. In all these respects the Congress of Vienna built solidly. There was a provision which was almost of necessity temporary. The Ionian Islands had formed part of the possessions of Venice ; but the Republic of Venice had been destroyed and was not about to be revived. The fortune of war had brought these islands into the possession of Great Britain. There was no very obvious means of disposing of them. Greece did not as yet exist. To subject them to the Ttirk, or to the absolutist Government of Austria, would have been a cruelty. As an expedient (which probably was recognised as temporary) it was decreed that they should ' form a single, free and independent ^ By the Peace of Paris, 1763, England retained all Canada, Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Grenada and the Grenadines, St. Vincent, Dominica and Tobago. She restored to France : Guadaloupe, Marie Galante, de la Desirade, Martinique, St. Lucia and Belle Isle. By the Treaty of Versailles, 1783, England ceded Tobago and St. Lucia, but received Dominica, Grenada, St. Vincent, St. Christopher, Nevis and Montserrat. Thus Tobago and St. Lucia have passed backwards and forwards. 44 Congress of Vienna and its Legacies State,' ' placed under the immediate and exclusive Protectorate of Great Britain.' Austria, Eussia, and Prussia renounced ' every right or particular protection,' and formally guaranteed all the dis- positions of the treaty.^ Great Britain proved an honest trustee and an indulgent guardian, and when Greece had become firmly established as a nation under the present dynasty, and the inhabitants of the islands had manifested their desire to be united, she gave up her Protectorate and consented to the Union in 1863.^ So far, we have recapitulated what may be called the successes of the Congress of Vienna. We now come to its failures. First, Italy. The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the Bourbon dynasty, was perhaps necessarily restored. So were the Papal States to the Pope. None of these territories had been included in the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy ; and this arrange- ment might have endured, or, at any rate, there might have been separate kingdoms for Southern Italy and Sicily, if it had not been for the misgovernment of rulers. But Northern Italy, which had for a time been united, was made the ^ The actual instrument is subsequent to the Congress of Vienna, having been made at Paris on November 5, 1815. " Treaty of July 18, 1863, between Great Britain, France, Russia, and Denmark. And Treaty of November 14, 1863, between the Five Great Powers. How far the dynasty whose position was so much augmented by this Union and by a monetary provision which Great Britain, France and Russia made by way of personal dotation to the monarch, has shown its gratitude may be a question for history. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 45 victim of division and annexation, without any consideration for the peoples dealt with. The Kingdom of Sardinia was restored. To it was added with scant consideration, but with some vain attempt to provide for the freedom of its citizens, the Republic of Genoa.^ Notwithstanding this provision the citizens of Genoa, accustomed to Republican institutions, suffered much under the absolute rule of Sardinia till the King's change of policy in 1848. The old Grand Duchy and Duchies of Tuscany, Parma, Piacenza, Modena, Lucca, etc., were preserved as appanages for the junior branches of the Hapsburg and Bourbon Houses, upon purely dynastic considerations. Austria retained the Milanese, and retained her iU-gotten acquisition of Venice, and the con- tinental territories of Venice on the western side of the Adriatic, and kept or recovered the territories on the eastern side, some part of which had been taken by Napoleon.^ The territories on the eastern side of the Adriatic, with a Slavonic population largely Itahanised by Venice and the little sister RepubHc of Ragusa, and still retained by Austria after her cession of Venetia in 1866, » ' Article 88. Les G6nois jouiront de tous les droits et privileges sp6cifi6s dans I'acte intitule, Conditions qui doivent servir de bases d la reunion des Stats de Gines a ceux de S. M. Sarde ; et ledit acte, tel qu'il se trouve annex6 a ce traite g6n6ral, sera consid6r6 comme partie int^grante de celui-ci, et aura la meme force et valeur que s'il 6tait textuellement ins6r6 dans I'article pr&ent.' « Vide supra, p. 33. 46 Congress of Vienna and its Legacies supply one of the problems which will have to be dealt with in the future treaty. Italy, thus partitioned and said by Metternich to be only a ' geographical expression/ was a focus of unrest almost from the date of the Congress of Vienna. Misgovernment of Naples by the Bourbons began at once, and the Holy Alliance had to threaten the Neapolitan people to keep them in subjection. In 1848 Charles Albert, King of Sardinia, attacked the Austrian territories of the Milanese, on behalf of an Italian League. The whole of Italy rose ; the King of Naples had to promise a Constitution ; Rome was made a Republic ; the Dukes had to flee ; and for a time Venice shook off the Austrian yoke. But the King of Sardinia was defeated and the status quo was restored in 1849. It was not till 1859 that Italy began to get her unity, nor till 1866 that Venetia was added to the rest of the kingdom ; nor till 1870 that the last portion of the Papal States was also added.^ Thus this portion of the work of the Congress of Vienna was unravelled and undone. The next failure was as regards Norway. Sweden had come unexpectedly to the assistance of the Allies against Napoleon — un- expectedly, because her Ruler was a Frenchman, and Bernadotte wanted his indemnity or satis- faction, to use Professor Bernard's phrase. He might have had Swedish Pomerania, or at least ^ Vide infra, Chapter IV. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 47 that which still remained in 1809, restored to him. But Prussia, which had previously acquired the rest of Pomerania, wanted this also. The loss of Finland, which had been gradually acquired by Russia at different dates between 1743 and 1809 (the last being the date of the great loss of territory) had been severely felt by Sweden. But some part, at least, of Finland lay too near to St. Petersburg or Petrograd. Compensation could not be given in this quarter. There remained Norway, which had long been as a kingdom united to the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark had on the whole taken the side of France, and might be considered as a conquered country which must yield up something to the victors. With a disregard of national feehng which was nearly as characteristic of the Congress of Vienna as it had been of the congresses and treaties of the eighteenth century, the people of Norway were handed over to Sweden. It might have been thought that the two countries would have formed a firm union. The peoples were both branches of the Scandinavian family, with languages not so dissimilar. Both were predominantly Lutheran in religion, though Sweden was episcopal and Norway unepiscopal.i The two kingdoms might have grown together like England and Scotland. But whereas in the 1 The Swedish episcopate claims, like the English, a direct succession, preserved notwithstanding the Reformation. In Denmark and Norway there were at first no bishops, only superintendents, till Bugenhagen, himself only a priest, professed to convert the five Danish superintendents into bishops. 48 Congress of Vienna and its Legacies British case the King came from the smaller and weaker kingdom and there was no question of conquest, the Swedes claimed to have conquered Norway, and paid insufficient attention to Nor- wegian susceptibilities. There was no very definite grievance, but the two countries got more and more apart in sentiment, and finally fell asunder like two halves of a ripe nut, in 1905. There is an isolated transaction with regard to Sweden which may be as well mentioned in this connection as elsewhere. One of the diplo- matic instruments executed in connection with the Treaty of Paris of 1856^ was a Convention between Great Britain, France, and Russia, as to the non-fortification of the Aland Isles. Sweden had been neutral, but she had shown sympathy with Great Britain and had made a treaty (November 21, 1855) binding herself not to give some assistance in Lapland to Russia. The Aland Isles from their position might be a menace to Stockholm if in the hands of Russia, to Petro- grad if in the hands of Sweden. So, by a Con- vention made between Great Britain, France,' and Russia, which was annexed to the general Treaty of Peace of 1856, Russia agreed that these islands should not be fortified and that no military or naval establishment should be made there. This seems one of the worst forms of treaty. Sweden, the State to be benefited, was no party. » Vid0 infra, Chapter V. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 49 Great Britain and France could therefore at any time release Russia without consulting Sweden. Again, if there were no other States likely to have naval forces in the Baltic, the Convention might be useful as protecting Sweden (the weaker State) and not seriously harming, though it was impinging upon, the Sovereignty of Russia. But when a new Baltic Power, Germany, arises, Russia is unable to use the islands as a place d'armes to protect the Gulf of Finland and her Baltic coasts, and the islands are left open to any sudden attack and occupation. Whether Great Britain and France have, during the present War, released Russia from her agreement, the writer does not know. It would seem that they would have done well and wisely to release her. The next failure of the Congress of Vienna was with regard to the Netherlands. Upon the first revolt against Philip II. of Spain, portions of the Southern Netherlands had joined with HoUand and Zeeland in insurrection. A line, however, was early drawn between the two portions, the southern part remaining Catholic and subject to the Spanish Crown, and passing later, under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, through the States General to Austria, with power to the States General to occupy barrier fortresses against France. By the Treaty of Paris of May 30, 1814, it was provided (Art. 6) that Holland, placed under the Sovereignty of the House of Orange, should 50 Congress of Vienna and its Legacies receive an accession of territory. By the Congress of Vienna (Art. 65) the ancient United Provinces of the Low Countries (that is what we know as the former Dutch Repubhc) and the former Belgian Provinces (which by Art. 66 included the Bishopric of Lidge), were to form the Kingdom of the Netherlands under the Prince of Orange- Nassau, described as being at that time Sovereign Prince of the United Provinces. By Art. 73, the King of the Netherlands recognised as a basis of this union the eight Articles of the Convention of July 11, 1814, which were annexed to the Great Treaty. In this Convention there were a number of provisions for the protection of religious worship, for equality between the inhabitants of Belgium and Holland, for the representation of the Belgian provinces in the States General, and for their admission to all rights of commerce and navigation to the colonies. Again an attempt to give with one hand and take back with the other ; to make two States into one and yet stipulate that the Sovereign of the United State should treat his subjects in a particular manner. The result was that the Union of Belgium and Holland endured for less time than the Union between Sweden and Norway The Belgians revolted in 1830. Their separa- tion and independence were recognised by the Treaty of London of 1831, made between the Five Great Powers and Belgium. And matters as between Belgium and Holland still remaining Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 51 unsettled and war continuing, principally with regard to the boundaries on the side of Luxem- burg, a final settlement was made in 1839. There were in 1839 two treaties : the principal treaty being between the Five Great Powers and the Netherlands, and the second treaty between the Five Powers and Belgium. By Art. i of this latter treaty the Five Powers declared that the Articles hereunto annexed and forming the tenour of the Treaty with the Netherlands ' are considered as having the same force and validity as if they were textually included in the present Act, and that they are thus placed under the guarantee of their said Majesties.' By the principal treaty (Art. 7) ' Belgium, within the limits specified in Arts, i, 2, and 4, shall form an independent and perpetually neutral State. It shall be bound to observe such neutrality towards all other States.' These treaties con- stitute the ' scrap of paper ' which the German Chancellor would not allow to stand in the way of a German invasion .^ One other matter in the principal treaty should be referred to. By Art. 9, the Act of the Congress of Vienna with regard to rivers is to apply to the Scheldt. ^ During the Franco -German War of 1870-1871, Great Britain (Mr. Gladstone being Prime Minister and Earl Granville Foreign Secretary) concluded a treaty with the North German Confederation, by which if France invaded the neutrality of Belgium Great Britain would ally herself with the Confederation for the purpose of defending Belgium, and a similar treaty with France in case the Confederation invaded Belgium. 52 Congress of Vienna and its Legacies The conservation of the river and the pilotage below Antwerp are to be under joint superinten- dence, and the Netherlands are to have the right to levy a toll for the West Scheldt. By Art. 14, the port of Antwerp shall continue to be solely a port of commerce. A glance at the map will show that both branches of the Scheldt pass out between Dutch terri- tories on either bank, with the result that while Holland is at peace, no ships of war and no military expedition can pass into Antwerp from the sea, or out of Antwerp. This war may have shown both advantages and disadvantages accruing from this state of things. But if the reconstituted Belgium is not to be tied to a position of neutrality, which has done her — on this occasion, at least — so much harm, and if her statesmen think that the waters of the Western Scheldt should be common and that, for this purpose, she should have the small portions of Dutch territory which are on its southern bank, there is much to be said for Belgium's acquisition of these territories, making due compensation to Holland. The historical case on one side and the other has been stated in Nos. 14 and 17 of vol. ii. of The New Europe. It is said that this strip of territory was conquered by Maurice of Nassau, from Spain. It has certainly remained for some hundred years in Dutch hands ; and it was by the use of this territory that the Dutch were able to enforce their favourite provision, dictated by commercial Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 53 jealousy, for the closing of Antwerp as a com- mercial port> The Emperor Joseph II. said, in 1784, that he would abandon all his grievances against Holland if he could get the opening of the Scheldt and the freedom of commerce with India. ^ While Holland and Belgium were one during the French Revolutionary Period, and during the exist- ence of the Congress Kingdom, from 1815 to 1831, the point did not arise. Since then the commercial freedom of Antwerp has been established by the already quoted Article of the Treaty of 1839. But for military purposes Antwerp has remained severed from the sea, and it seems to be a matter for important consideration whether this severance should continue. The last failure was in Poland, and it is a failure under the effects of which we suffer most severely at this moment. Here some historical retrospect must be made.* In the seventeenth century the four nations who were of account on the shores of the Baltic were Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and Russia. Portions of Germany reached to the southern littoral and the Hanse towns were of importance. Prussia, so far as it existed, was a feudatory of Poland, or, for a short time, of Sweden. The Peace of Oliva of 1660, which was 1 stipulated in Article 14 of the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648. ^ Esclavage que le traite de Miinster lui avait impos6. ' Ruhliere, Histoire de I'anarchie de Pologne et du d6membre- ment is a valuable history of the period to which it relates. The articles on Poland and Prussia in the Encyclopedia Briiannica give an excellent general summary. 54 Congress of Vienna and its Legacies made up or followed by several bilateral treaties, forms an epoch when Denmark retired from her pride of place. The southern part of Sweden (Scania and Halland) was ceded by Denmark, and from that time Denmark lost the control of both shores of the Sound. On the other hand, Sweden relinquished her suzerainty of Prussia. As between Sweden and Poland, Northern Livonia went to Sweden and Southern to Poland ; Russia abandoned all Livonia. Poland also pos- sessed Courland, and in right of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was annexed to Poland, even such Russian towns as Smolensk and the holy city of Kieff. The line as between Poland and Russia at that date is well shown in Robertson and Bartholomew's Historical Atlas,^ and it is astonishing how much of Russia, as we now know it, was then in the Kingdom of Poland — all that is called White Russia, Black Russia, and Little Russia. Russia had been even further restricted; for earlier in the century she had lost most of the southern shore of the Gulf of Finland, but this was to Sweden. After 1660, began her recoveries from, or encroachments upon — whichever way one looks at it — Poland. Some cessions were made by Poland in 1667,^ ' And in Spriiner Historisch Geographischer Hand-Atlas. ' The Treaty of Andrusovo, 1667, between Poland and Russia, restored to the Tsar Smolensk and the other places which had been ceded in 1634, and also gave him Little Russia up to the Dnieper, along with the sacred city of Kieff. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 55 and retaken afterwards. But the Treaty of Moscow in 1686 gave back to Russia the conquests so made by Poland, and all that part of Little Russia of which Russia was then in occupation, and Kieff, which was expressly recognised as part of the ancient patrimony of the Tsar. It was not till the Peace of Nystadt in 1721, that Russia got Livonia, Esthonia, Ligria, and a part of Carelia, from Sweden ; some of this a new acquisition, and some the recovery of territories once possessed by Russia and then lost. This treaty brought Russia not only to the southern side of the Gulf of Finland, but also upon the Baltic. After this date come what are known as the Three Partitions of Poland — 1772, 1793, 1795.^ And first, it is of importance — because of the warning which it gives against the insertion of clauses of this nature in treaties — to see the weapon which was in the hand of the Empress Catharine of Russia, that which supplied not the motive, but the pretext, more or less plausible, for her action. In the Treaty of Oliva there were stipulations for the protection of the co-religionists of either Power in the territories of the other. Poland stipulated for the protection of Roman Catholics in North Livonia, and Sweden for the protection of those who were afterwards known as the ' Dissidents ' in Poland. Sweden, probably, was concerned for the Lutherans only'; but the Dis- 1 Vide supra, p. 32. 56 Congress of Vienna and its Legacies sidents came in time to cover members of the Orthodox Church as well. In the Treaty of Moscow of 1686, by Art. 9, Poland promised Russia not to molest members of the Orthodox Church or Lutherans, and not to try to make them Roman Catholics. It was on an appeal by these Dissidents that the Empress moved in 1764. In 1768, the treaty between Russia and Poland provided that while the King of Poland should be a Roman Catholic, the Confederation of Dissidents should be recog- nised as legal, and that they should be protected in their religious worship. Having thus successfully interfered in the affairs of Poland, Catharine was enabled further to stipulate that the old Constitution of Poland should be preserved with all its vices, reducing the administration of the Kingdom, or Republic as it was often called, to a state of powerlessness. After that it was easy to find pretexts for inter- fering, either because of the anarchy or in order to continue the anarchy ; and the First Partition was made. As between Russia and Poland, it might be fairly contended that both the First and the Second Partitions restored to Russia what was its own, or, at any rate, united peoples of prac- tically the same race, and took from Poland a subject Russian race. There are no doubt those who will say that the Little Russians are Ukrainians or Ruthenians, and not closely akin to the ordinary Russian. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 57 But they are more akin to the Russian than to the Pole, and they are of the Orthodox Church and not of the Roman Cathohc Church. But the gains of Prussia in both Partitions, and of Austria in the First Partition, were of a different nature. Austria annexed Eastern Gahcia, which is said to be wholly Ruthenian and Orthodox, and which gained nothing if it lost nothing — I speak of its people — by the transfer ; while there was no question that this was a dismember- ment of what had always been Polish territory. The position of Prussia was more complicated. The Elector of Brandenburg, in respect of his holding in Prussia — which was, generally speaking, that part of Prussia now called East Prussia — was at first only a vassal prince, for a time sub- ordinate to Sweden, otherwise to Poland. He was called the Duke of Prussia at the time of the Peace of Oliva in 1660. The Kingdom of Prussia dates from 1701, and even after that there was for a time some nominal suzerainty in the King of Poland. West Prussia, with Danzig, cutting off the Kingdom from the Mark of Brandenburg and the Prussian possessions in Pomerania and Silesia, and Erme- land, were assigned to Prussia at the First Par- tition. West Prussia is said to have been a thoroughly German land, having formed part of the possessions of the Teutonic Order. So far the arrangement may be said to have been a natural one. Otherwise as to the Partitions of 1793 and 1795. ^ They gave to 58 Congress of Vienna and its Legacies Prussia purely Polish provinces — Great Poland, as it was called, in 1793, and the centre of Poland itself with its capital, Warsaw, in 1795. This final division, which gave Courland and the main part of Lithuania to Russia, the rest of Galicia and of Lodomeria to Austria, and the provinces just mentioned to Prussia, extinguished Poland as a State. The more patriotic and military Poles, emigrat- ing to France, formed some of the best soldiers of Napoleon, and he rewarded them by con- stituting the Grand Duchy of Warsaw at the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807. The Grand Duchy was taken out of Polish Prussia. It was in these circumstances that the Congress of Vienna had to deal with Poland. Austria was left with that part of Galicia and Lodomeria which she had gained at the First Partition ; but did not keep what was called Western Galicia, which had been given to her on the Third. Prussia was given the Province of Posen, but otherwise left as at the date of the First Par- tition. Out of the rest of the Austrian and Prussian acquisitions, with some alteration of boundary round Byalistok in favour of Russia, a Kingdom of Poland with Warsaw as its capital, and a Republic of Cracow were constituted, and the Emperor of Russia was made King of Poland. Then it was provided (Art. i of the Treaty of Vienna) that Russian Poland should have a distinct administration ; and the Poles — whether Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 59 subject to Russia, Austria, or Prussia— were to receive a representation and national status arranged according to that form of political existence which each of the governments to which they belonged should judge useful and suitable to give them.i The town of Cracow with its territories was declared to be in perpetuity a free city, independent and strictly neutral, under the protection of Russia, Austria, and Prussia (Art. 6). The Three Powers engaged to respect, and to procure the respect of, the neutrality of the town and territory.^ On the other hand, the Cracovians were not to grant asylum or protection to refugees, deserters, or criminals (Art. 9).^ * Congris de Vienne. Article i . Le 6uch.€ de Varsovie, a I'exception des provinces et districts dont il a dt6 autrement disposd dans les articles suivants, est r6uni k I'empire de Russie. II y sera li6 irrdvocable- ment par sa constitution, pour etre poss6d6 par S.M. I'empereur de toutes les Russies, ses h^ritiers et ses successeurs k perp6tuit6. S.M.I, se reserve de donner a cet 6tat, jouissant d'une administra- tion distincte, I'extension int^rieure qu'elle jugera convenable. EUe prendra avec ses autres titres celui de czar, roi de Pologne, conform6ment au protocole usit6 et consacre pour les titres attaches k ses autres possessions. Les Polonais, sujets respectifs de la Russie, de I'Autriche et de la Prusse, obtiendront une representation et des institu- tions nationales, r6gl6es d'aprfes le mode d'existence politique que chacun des gouvernements auxquels ils appartiennent jugera utile et convenable de leur accorder. ^ Article 6. La ville de Cracovie avec son territoire est d&lar^e k perp6tuit6 cit6 libre, ind6pendante, et strictement neutre, sous la protection de la Russie, de I'Autriche et de la France. * Article 9. Les cours de Russie, d'Autriche et de Prusse, s'engagent k respecter et k faire respecter en tout temps la neutrality de la ville libre de Cracovie et de son territoire ; aucune 6o Congress of Vienna and its Legacies These half-and-half measures, intended as some expression of the European conscience with respect to the unwarranted destruction of Poland, produced no result except to excite vain hopes and stir up fruitless insurrections. On the outbreak of the French Revolution of 1830, and the revolt of Belgium from Holland in the same year, the Poles rose in insurrection and were defeated ; and the result was that Poland was reduced to the position of an ordinary Russian province. They rose again in 1863, only to be reconquered and resubjected. The action of Russia led to protest on the part of Great Britain and France. Excellent State Papers issued from the British Foreign Office, models of good writing and fine language, but mere words. \ \ As to Cracow, the poor little Republic, isolated from all the world by its three powerful neighbours, was discovered, rightly or wrongly — it does not much matter— to be an asylum for the evil-doers of the adjacent States ; and by the Convention of Cracow of November 6, 1846, Cracow was force armee ne pourra jamais y Stre introduite sous quelque pr6texte que ce soit. En revanche, il est entendu et expressdment stipule qu'il ne pourra etre accord6 dans la ville libre et sur le territoire da Cracovie, aucun asile ou protection a des transfuges, d&erteurs, ou gens poursuivis par la loi, appartenants aux pays de I'une ou de I'autre des hautes puissances susdites, et que, sur la demande d'extradition qui pourra en 6tre faite par les autorit6s conip6tentes, de tels individus seront arrSt6s et livr6s sans delai, sous bonne escorte, k la garde qui sera charg6e de les recevoir k la frontiere. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 6i ' restored ' (that was the expression chosen) to Austria. Great Britain and France protested, and protested in vain. Perhaps the most dangerous legacy of the Congress of Vienna, and the one which will give most trouble when peace is finally settled, will be Poland, not necessarily the old Kingdom or Republic, or the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but what may be called the irreducible minimum of Russian Poland with the Prussian Province of Posen and the Austrian Province of Galicia. Be it remembered that these Prussian and Austrian Provinces were recognised as outside the German Confederation of 1815, though Prussian Poland has been included, notwithstanding the continued protests of its representatives, in the German Empire as constituted in 1871. CHAPTER IV THE MAKING OF ITALY AND THE REMAKING OF GERMANY The legacies of the Congress of Vienna in respect of Western Europe have been traced down to the Franco-German War of 1870-71 in the chapter upon that Congress and its Legacies. But it would be well, where the matter comes in chrono- logical order, to treat the making of Italy and remaking of Germany — being matters of the greatest importance to Europe and the world — a little more fully. Those who guided the destinies of Sardinia had not given up the hope of an Italian, or at least a North Italian, unity, though they had to succumb to Austria in 1849.^ Under the advice of Cavour, the King of Sardinia entered into an alliance with France and Great Britain, who were defending Turkey in the Crimean War,^ sent a contingent of soldiers to the Crimea, and procured some mention of the Italian question during the discussions of the Plenipotentiaries who were framing the Treaty of Paris in 1856. In 1859, Napoleon III. took * Vtde supra, p. 46. ° For this war, vide infra, Chapter V. 62 Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 63 up arms as the ally of Sardinia against Austria ; and Austria, being defeated in the Milanese, entered into the Preliminary Treaty of Villafranca, July II, 1859, and the final Treaties of Zurich, November 10, 1859. By the earliest of these treaties which was made between Austria and France, Lombardy was ceded to the Emperor of the French, who was to present it to the King of Sardinia ; and there was a proposed Confederation of Italy under the Honorary Presidency of the Pope. The idea of Napoleon III. at that time seems to have been that Sardinia should have the Milanese, that the administration of the Duchies and the Papal States should be reformed, and that Northern Italy should be made into a kind of Federation. But already the Dukes and Grand Duke had been ousted, and portions of the Papal Territories had risen in revolt, and by the time of the Treaty of Zurich, Garibaldi had occupied Naples and Sicily. Nevertheless, by that one of the three Treaties of Zurich^ which was signed between Austria and France, an attempt was made to preserve the old idea of a North Italian Confederation with a reservation of the rights of the Grand Duke and Dukes, and a restoration of all the Papal States to the Pope. But the Italian feeUng was too strong ; and in 1 There were three treaties, the one mentioned in the text, a second between France and Sardinia relating to the cession of Lombardy, and a third between all three States, a general Treaty of Peace. 64 The Making of Italy and Germany the result all that happened was that Austria saved Venetia ; and the arrangements made between France and Sardinia saved the residue of the Papal States, Florence being later on constituted the capital ; and so the Kingdom of Italy was established, not by any definite treaty — the only treaty being that affecting the Milanese. This still left what was known as ' Italia Irredenta,' comprising the residue of the Papal States and at least Venetia, and, in a broader sense, further lands to the north and east. But though the House of Savoy, by succeeding to the Throne of Italy, made large acquisitions, that dynasty lost, and in one sense it may be said that Italy lost, a portion of its territory. It must have been particularly galling to the dynasty to part with Savoy which had been the cradle of its race ; and Nice was certainly Italian and the birthplace of Garibaldi, the Liberator of Southern Italy. Napoleon III., however, in- sisted upon being paid for his services, and in i860 the County of Nice and the Duchy of Savoy were ceded by Sardinia to France. This cession opened a new era. It purported, at any rate, to be effected with the goodwill of the ceded populations. How far the plebiscite then taken was a real expression of the feelings of the voters may perhaps be doubted ; but homage was paid to the true principle; and after-events have shown that the two provinces have been welded in feeling with the rest of France. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 65 Even so, their acquisition points a moral of warn- ing. France was warned by the EngHsh Foreign Secretary, Lord Russell, who no doubt was accus- tomed to read lessons to Foreign Powers, that : If Savoy should be annexed to France, it will be generally supposed that the left bank of the Rhine, and the ' natural limits,' will be the next object ; and thus the Emperor will become an object of suspicion to Europe, and kindle the hostility of which his uncle was the victim. » When, at the conclusion of the Franco-German War, France had to cede ancient cherished terri- tory, Bismarck is said to have pointed out that she had not lost more than she had gained in i860. When war broke out between Austria and Prussia in 1866, Italy joined as the Ally of Prussia, and recovered Venetia by the Treaty of Prague. This further rounding off of her territory was simultaneous with the first step in the remaking of Germany. When war broke out between France and the North German Confederation in 1870, the Frenqh had to withdraw their troops from Rome, the Italians entered the territory, a plebiscite was taken, and Rome, with the residue of the Papal States, was added to Italy. This may be said to be nearly simultaneous with the welding of the North German Confedera- tion and the States of South Germany into the German Empire. So the latter stages of the making of Italy were contemporaneous with the stages of the remaking of Germany. * Phillimore, Commentaries on International Law, vol. i. sec. 403. 66 The Making of Italy and Germany Now as to Germany. As pointed out in the past chapter, the effect of the quarrel between Austria and Prussia as to the disposal of the spoils which they had acquired from Denmark, led to the war of 1866 and the Treaty of Prague. By this treaty Austria agreed to the Dissolution of the old German Confederation, and gave her assent beforehand to all such territorial changes as Prussia saw fit to make, on the sole condition that Saxony should remain intact. Austria also ceded all her rights in the Duchies of Schleswig- Holstein, with a stipulation as to the people of North Schleswig, which will be mentioned shortly. Prussia took possession of Hanover, the Electorate of Hesse, Nassau, and the city of Frankfort-on-the-Main ; and Saxony having agreed to come into the Confederation, a North German Confederation was formed, whose southern boundary was the river Main. This river cut the Grand Duchy of Hesse, or Hesse Darmstadt, in two. Both Luxemburg and Limburg were ex- cepted though north of the Main ; and the States left south and outside the Confederation were the residue of the Grand Duchy of Hesse, Baden, Wiirtemberg and Bavaria, and the little Principality of Liechtenstein, which has remained outside both the Confederation and the Empire. Luxemburg became a disturbing element. Napoleon III. was supposed to have desired it as a sort of compensation for the gains of Prussia and the increased strength of his future neighbour. On the other hand, it was still within the ZoU- Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 67 verein, and the town had been one of the Federal fortresses of the old German Confederation. This disturbing element was removed by the Treaty of London, 1867, between the Six Powers, the Netherlands and Belgium, as to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg and the Province of Limburg. By this treaty : The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg . . . under the Guarantee of the Courts of the Five Powers shall henceforth form a perpetually neutral State. It shall be bound to observe the same neutrality towards all other States. The High Contracting Parties engage to respect the principle of neutrality stipulated by the present article. That principle is and remains placed under the sanction of the collective guarantee of the Powers, signing Parties to the present Treaty, with the exception of Belgium which is itself a neutral State. (Art. 2.) In the Franco-German War, France and Prus- sia separately declared that they would respect this neutrality, and they did so. In the present War, Germany marched straight through, without even the courtesy of a preliminary demand. It may be said in favour of the arrangement of 1867 that in a time of great strain (1870-1871) it preserved the neutrality of this little State, and that such a wanton series of breaches of treaty as have been perpetrated by Germany on the occasion of the present War, is not hkely to recur, particularly if condign chastisement be now administered. But, on the other hand, the events of this War have shown that, if the stress be 68 'The Making of Italy and Germany great enough, provisions as to neutrality are not observed, and that it would be far better if Luxemburg, like Belgium, was relieved of its ambiguous position, and if Luxemburg were itself either annexed to, or brought into close alliance with, some larger Power, perhaps Belgium. Dutch Limburg was relieved of any connection with Germany and definitely annexed for all purposes to Holland. Any one who looks at the map and sees the position of this province will perhaps wonder that its neutrality has not been violated. The respect shown to it by Germany is a considerable testimony to her appreciation of Dutch neutrality. The position of the South German States was for a time uncertain. There were suggestions that the}'^ might group themselves with Austria as a South German Confederation ; and if now the Austro-Hungarian Empire should be broken up as a consequence of the War, and the German units should be found tending towards a union with other German elements, it would, if it were practicable, be very desirable for the peace of the world that the South German States should detach themselves and unite with German Austria. In 1868 there was some movement towards a South German Confederation. The writer re- members a certain Schutzenfest at Vienna in the summer of 1868, which was attended by South Germans from Bavaria, Wiirtemberg, and Baden, at which a demonstration was made towards this end. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 69 But the statesmen had otherwise arranged, and treaties (which were for some time kept secret) of offensive and defensive alliance were made between the North German Confederation and the four Southern States. When war broke* out between the North German Confederation and France in 1870, the forces of these States were placed under the supreme military command of the King of Prussia and contributed to the victory over France. As the war continued, these States agreed to confederate with their Northern brethren ; and on January 18, 1871, on the initiative of the King of Bavaria, the King of Prussia was proclaimed ' German Emperor,' not, be it observed, Roman Emperor or Emperor of Germany, thus not making claim to any continuity with the old Empire. On April 16, 1871, the German Empire was con- stituted, shortly to receive at the conclusion of the war, the accretion of Alsace and part of Lorraine, and embracing, as already stated, within its limits the non-German provinces of Schleswig and Polish Prussia. With regard to Schleswig, Austria had, with a late repentance, stipulated by Art of 5 the Treaty of Prague that the populations of the northern districts of Schleswig should be ceded to Denmark, if by a free vote they expressed a wish to be united to her. This is an example of an useless clause in a treaty. Every pact made between A and B for the benefit of C is of httle or no advantage unless 70 The Making of Italy and Germany it ultimately suits one of the contracting parties to assert the rights of the third ; if it does not, the clause is of no value to C, though it may, in some instances, hamper A or B?- The Franco-German War of 1870-71 and the cessions stipulated in favour of Germany by the Treaty of Peace in 1871, are the direct causes of the present War. The cession of the whole of Alsace and of a good part of Lorraine took away from France a people who — though some of them were German in speech — were as entirely French in sentiment as any part of the nation.^ Bis- marck is supposed to have deprecated a demand of this magnitude. The lesson to be drawn is that, at any rate in modern times, when the unity of a State is so closely knit, and national sentiment is so thoroughly developed, the tearing away of a limb from the trunk makes a wound which hardly ever heals. The guerre de revanche has been in the minds of all Frenchmen for a generation ; and, coupled with this was the not unwarranted fear that whenever France showed signs of strength, Germany might fall upon her and crush her. It became almost a political necessity to make the alliance with Russia and the Entente with Great Britain ; and ^ An example of this has been mentioned in the last chapter, the case of the non-fortification of the Aland Islands. Prussia found means to evade the operation of the stipulation in the Treaty of Prague, and in 1879 it was formally abrogated by a treaty between the Two Powers. * The novels ofErckmann-Chatrian, which used to deUght our youth, afford striking indications of this. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 71 hence the introduction of France, Belgium, and Great Britain into the present War. O impotence of man's frail mind To fate and to the future blind. Presumptuous and o'erweening still When fortune follows at its will ! Full soon shall Tumus wish in vain That life untouched, those spoils unta'en. ^ If the rectification of frontiers so as to give to Germany good strategic positions and railway lines with as much cession of territory as would be required for this purpose, had been the hmit of German demands, probably the soreness of defeat would have soon been forgotten, and we should have had none of the enormous scale of armament and military establishment which for years made Central Europe into armed camps^ and not unnaturally developed into the present War. The other provisions of the Peace were simple and may be shortly enumerated. By the pre- liminary Treaty of Versailles, February 26, 1871, favourable consideration was stipulated for the unfortunate natives of the ceded territories, and in the final Treaty of Frankfort, May 10, 1871, ^ Virgil, /Eneid, Book IX. Conington's Translation. The original Latin — Turno iempus erit magna quum opiaverit emptum Intactum Pallanta et quum spolia ista diemque Oderit was the motto of Sir Robert PhiUimore's pamphlet on the seizure of the Southern Envoys from the British ship Trent during the War of Secession. Fortunately in that case Pallas was in a state of suspended animation and good counsels permitted his restoration. 73 The Making of Italy and Germany this was elaborated into Art. 2, which may form a useful precedent. Art. 2. French subjects — ^natives of the ceded terri- tories actually domiciled on that territory who shall preserve their nationality shall up to the ist of October, 1872, and on their making previous declaration to that effect to the competent authority, be allowed to change their domicile into France and to remain there, that right in no wise im- pinging on the laws of Military Service in which case the title of French citizen shall be maintained. They shall be at liberty to preserve their immoveables situated in the territory united to Germany. No inhabitant of the ceded territory shall be prosecuted, annoyed, or sought for, either in his person or his property, on account of his Political or Military Acts previous to the war. Besides this, there were provisions for a large pecuniary indemnity to be secured by the mihtary occupation of portions of the territory of France, the occupation being gradually reduced in area as each instalment of the indemnity was paid. The vexed question whether previous treaties are abrogated or not by war was solved by a special stipulation (Art. 11) that Treaties of Navigation, and a previous Convention as tp International Service of Railways, and another as to Copyright should be renewed. This is the last Treaty of Peace for Western Europe. CHAPTER V THE TREATY HISTORY OF EASTERN EUROPE The next important treaties concern Eastern Europe, and as to them there must be some retrospect. When the Christian Powers began to enter into treaties with Turkey they procured the insertion of provisions, usually known as Capitu- lations, giving special protection to their subjects when trading to, or residing in, the Turkish dominions, and securing a special status for their Consuls, with an extra-territorial juris- diction in civil and even criminal matters over the subjects of their nations.^ France had Capitulations going back to 1604. But those in force at the time with which we are deahng were the Capitulations of 1740, which gave to her subjects, in addition to other privileges, the right to visit the Holy Places at Jerusalem.'' * Phillimore, Commentaries on International Law, vol. i. sec. 413 ; vol. ii. part vii. chap. v. For the English Capitulations of 1675, see Collection of Treaties, &c., on Commerce and Navigation, by Lewis Hertslet, 1827, vol. ii. p. 346. ' Phillimore, vol. i. sec. 413. 73 74 The Treaty History of Eastern Europe Besides these Capitulations, as the wave of Turkish Conquest over the Provinces of Hungary, Poland, and Russia began to recede, we find pro- visions in the treaties, by which the Christian nations not only recover portions of their territory, but make stipulations for the protection of their fellow religionists in Turkey. In the Treaties of Carlowitz, 1699, between Poland and Turkey and Austria and Turkey, there are stipulations for the freedom of the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, according to the ancient Capitulations ; and power is given to the Christian ambassadors to make complaint if there is any violation of these privileges, or any interference with visits to the Holy Places; and similar provisions recur in later treaties.^ Russia followed suit in the Treaty of Belgrade, 1739, when she stipulated for protection of Rus- sians visiting the Holy Places. By the Treaty of Kainardji, 1774, she took a promise from the Porte to protect the Christian religion and its churches, and again stipulated for the freedom of access to the Holy Places. As the nineteenth century proceeded Russia began to intervene,* and was ultimately allowed by Turkey to in- tervene, for the protection of the Principalities of Serbia and of Moldavia and Wallachia, now called Roumania. By the Treaty of Bucharest in 1812, Turkey made certain promises for the good government * See Phillimore, Commentaries on International Law, vol. i. sees. 412, 413. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 75 of Serbia, which were renewed by the Treaties of Ackerman, 1826, and Adrianople, 1829. In 1820 the Greeks rose in revolt. After many years' fighting. Great Britain, France, and Russia, upon the application of Greece, inter- vened, claiming to have a right to stay the in- definite effusion of blood, and to secure the pacification of the Levant ; and by the Treaty of Adrianople, 1829, Greece was established as a separate State, guaranteed by the Three Powers, Great Britain, France, and Russia.^ A further Treaty of Establishment and Guarantee when the first King, Otho of Bavaria, was chosen, was made in London, 1832. By the Treaty of Adrianople, special provision was made with regard to Moldavia and Wallachia.^ These principalities, which had been conquered by Russia, were restored to Turkey, but in a limited manner only. They were to be placed under the suzerainty of the Porte with stipu- lations for freedom of worship and independent national government, and full Hberty of commerce. The Princes, or Hospodars, were to be elected for life, and there were many other provisions unnecessary to be detailed now. These were modified in the sense of giving further steps towards independence by the Treaty of St. Petersburg, 1 The position of Greece will be discussed in fuller detail later on. ' In extension of similar provisions in the Treaties of Bucharest and Ackerman. The Treaty of Adrianople was confirmed by the Treaty of Peace and Alliance of Unkiar Skelessi in 1833. 76 The Treaty History of Eastern Europe in 1834, and again by the Treaty of Balta-Liman in 1849. In 1853 trouble arose about the rival claims of Latin and Greek Christians to hold religious worship in the Holy Places. France, rel5dng on her Capitu- lations of 1740, took up the position of Protector of the Roman Catholics ; Russia, rel5dng on the Treaty of Kainardji of 1774, took the position of Protector of the Orthodox. This essay, while it is intended to show the way in which mistaken treaties may bring on war, does not assume to analyse all the causes, even of modern wars. In the instance of the Crimean War, there was the standing misgovernment of the Christian popu- lation by the Porte. There was the contest about the Holy Places, and there were other causes, some of them personal. These are caustically set forth by Kinglake.^ It is enough here to state that whatever may have been the motives, the pretexts were foimd in the two treaties last men- tioned, and also that the Emperor of Russia thought that by reason of his quasi-protectoratei of the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, he could by occuppng these principalities make an effective demonstration against Turkey without actually embarking on war. It is safe to say that but for the embarrassing position in which Turkey was placed by these treaties and engagements, there would have been no Crimean War, even with all the personal ' The Invasion of the Crimea, vol. i., passim. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 77 motives tending to bring about that unhappy and useless strife. It was concluded by the Treaty of Paris of 1856. That treaty, made between the Five Great Powers of that period and Sardinia and Turkey, has the following provisions : First, as already stated,^ it was a Congress Treaty made between Powers, some of whom had not been at war. Secondly, there was a cession of territory by the Power which on the whole was the vanquished party — Russia. A portion of Bessarabia was ceded to Turkey to be treated as part of the Principality of Moldavia.^ There was at the time some reason, real or supposed, for taking away from Russia the control of the Kilia mouth of the Danube. But what- ever the reason, this cession, of no serious value to Turkey, or to Europe, produced a dispropor- tionate soreness in Russia, and led to the rather extraordinary result of Roumania — after she had fought on the side of Russia — having to retrocede this territory to Russia in 1878. By Art. 7 the Porte was admitted to ' parti- cipate in the advantages of the public law and system of Europe,' an expression somewhat difficult of comprehension. This was followed by a promise to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and a guarantee by the Six Powers in common of the strict observance_of » Vide supra, p. 12. " Art. 20. 78 The Treaty History of Eastern Europe this engagement, and a statement that they would consider any act of violation a question of general interest. Be it observed that it was a common or collective, and not an individual guarantee, and as no Power other than one of the Six was likely to make a serious attack upon Turkey, there was little value in the guarantee; though no doubt the statement that any attack upon Turkey woiild be a question of general interest might afford a justification for any one or more of the Six Powers assisting Turkey, in the event of an attack by any of the other Powers. The vagueness of these provisions and the probability that they would give rise to mis- understanding and bring about war, brings them, it is suggested, under the censure already expressed in an early part of this essay .^ By Art. 9 it was stated that note was taken of a communication by the Sultan of the firman which he had issued for the benefit of his Christian subjects, and the firman was welcomed. But it was stipulated that this was to give the Powers no right to interfere collectively, or separately, in the relations of the Sultan with his subjects, or in the internal administration of Turkey. Thenceforward, any separate interference by France or by Russia was prevented ; ^ and indeed ' Vide supra, pp. 7, 8. • Exception should perhaps be made for the pacification of Syria on the occurrence of the conflict between the Druses and the Maronites in i860, on which occasion France took a prominent part. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 79 even collective interference was apparently for- bidden. Nevertheless, from that date till the Russo-Turkish War and the Treaty of Berlin in 1878, the Christian Powers who had come to the assistance of Turkey in the Crimean War and the other Congress Powers felt themselves bound in honour from time to time, as special outbreaks of misgovernment, injustice, and cruelty on the part of the Porte towards its Christian subjects occurred, to offer remonstrances. They were useless proceedings except in so far as they brought the matter to a climax in 1877 ; and they were useless because the Powers were jealous (and Turkey was aware that they were jealous) of each other ; because if one or two remonstrated without getting the previous con- currence of the others, some of the others at once took the opposite line ; because if all could be brought to an agreement, they could only be brought to agree upon some weak and emasculated course of action ; and because Turkey knew that by apparent compliance with any collective demand she could protect herself against any overt act of interference, while she could put off indefinitely any active measure of compliance, trusting that, however collective was the judg- ment, there would be no collective, and therefore no effective, execution. Constantinople, under this system, became the fencing school or sparring ground of diplomatists, the weapons being foils with buttons carefully kept on, and fists without the gloves being removed. 8o The Treaty History of Eastern Europe Returning to the Treaty, there was a series of useful provisions (Arts. 15 to 19) as to the free navigation of the Danube, adopting the principles as to the navigation of rivers passing through different States which had been codified at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. And then there were some noteworthy pro- visions (Arts. 10 to 14) as to the Dardanelles, Bosphorus, and Black Sea. Here again there must be some retrospect, though only a short one. Though the two Straits are the only highway between the countries bordering on the Black Sea and Sea of Azov and the greater seas of the world, they are so narrow that it seems reasonable that the Sovereign of the adjacent countries should exercise a control over the navigation, in a sense in which it is not exercised by Great Britain and France over the Straits of Dover, nor even by Denmark and Sweden over the Sound ; and States generally have been more concerned to provide for, than to question, this control. Russia, at any rate, up to this date was more anxious to prevent ships of war of hostile Powers from entering the Black Sea than to get her own out. Other nations were more anxious to keep Russian ships of war in than to have the oppor- tunity of attacking her coasts in the Black Sea. And, accordingly, in treaties from time to time other States have, so to speak, kept the Porte up to its duty. Thus, by the Treaty of Con- stantinople of 1809, between Great Britain and Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 8i Turkey— concluded after the English Fleet had been sent to Constantinople on a warlike errand — ' the ancient rule of the Ottoman Empire ' as to ships of war of other nations coming into the two Straits was recognised. By the Treaty of Adrianople 1829 (Art. 7), freedom of navigation for merchant vessels pro- ceeding to or from Russia was stipulated. But the Clause was confined to merchant vessels. By the Secret Article annexed to the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi of 1833, Turkey was to close the Dardanelles against any foreign ship of war of a Power engaged in hostilities with Russia. This was a treaty of defensive alliance between Russia and Turkey ; and this particular provision was to be a contribution on the part of Turkey, taking the place of any other material assistance. As soon as it was known it was protested against by France ; and it probably led to the Treaty of July 1841 between the Five Powers and Turkey, in which the Sultan declared his firm resolution to maintain the principle invariably established as the ancient rule of his Empire, by virtue of which vessels of war of foreign Powers are forbidden to enter into the two Straits, sajdng that as long as he is at peace he would not admit any vessel of war into the Straits ; and the Five Powers, on the other hand, engaged to respect this determination of the Sultan, and to conform to the principle thus announced.^ ^ upon the occasion of the Convention of London in July 1840 between Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Turkey, for 82 The Treaty History of Eastern Europe By Art. lo of the Treaty of Paris and a separate Convention annexed to the treaty, these pro- visions as to the closing of the Straits to ships of war in time of war ^ is renewed, notwithstanding that experience had shown that it was open to some objection, because if Turkey anticipated war with Russia, she could not protect herself by bringing the vessels of her Allies within the Dardanelles without committing an act which might be taken as the opening of hostilities ; and this had been one of the steps by which the nations had drifted into the Crimean War. Notwithstanding the approach of the British and French Fleets, the Russians had been able at a very early stage of the war to destroy a Turkish Fleet at Sinope. And this act, though warrantable because the two Powers were already at war, was — owing to the imperfect means of communication then in existence — supposed by the British public to have been done in time of peace, and to be an act, as it was called, of treachery the Pacification of the Levant and the defence of Constantinople against Mehemet Ah, which might necessitate the entrance of vessels of war of some of the Four Powers into the Straits, there had been a provision for their entrance in these exceptional circumstances, with a statement of the general rule as mentioned in the text. There was an exception in the Treaty of 1841, for light vessels employed in the service of the Legations, and this is repeated in the Treaty of 1856, with a further provision for police vessels for the Danube. ^ But it was provided that the Porte might ' open the said Straits in time of peace to the vessels of war of friendly or aUied Powers, in case the Sublime Porte should judge it necessary in order to secure the execution of the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris.' Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 83 on the part of Russia. The writer is just old enough to remember the sensation which that destruction produced. It was thought to guard against this, and accordingly Arts. 11, 13, and 14 were inserted in the Treaty of Paris. By Art. 11 : The Black Sea is neutralised : its waters and its ports, thrown open to the mercantile marine of every nation, are formally and in perpetuity interdicted to the flag of war, either of the Powers possessing its coasts, or of any other Power, with the exceptions mentioned in Articles 14 and 19 of the present Treaty.^ Art. 12 provided for freedom of commerce. Arts. 13 and 14 are as follows : Art. 13. The Black Sea being neutraUsed according to the terms of Art. ir, the maintenance or establishment upon its coast of military-maritime arsenals becomes alike unnecessary and purposeless ; in consequence, his Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and his Imperial Majesty the Sultan engage not to establish or to maintain upon that coast any military-maritime arsenal. Art. 14. Their Majesties the Emperor of All the Russias and the Sultan, having concluded a Convention for the purpose of settling the force and the number of light vessels, necessary for the service of their coasts, which they reserve to themselves to maintain in the Black Sea, that Convention is annexed to the present Treaty, and shall have the same force and validity as if it formed an integral part thereof. It cannot be either annulled or modified without the assent of the Powers signing the present Treaty. This is an example, as the late Sir Robert Phillimore used to say, of one of the worst forms * Light vessels used by the Legations and police vessels for the Danube. 84 The Treaty History of Eastern Europe of restriction of sovereignty or imposition of servitude known in the history of treaties, sinning against Maxims 4 and 5.^ It was so irritating and offensive to Russia that she took the first opportunity during the Franco-German War of claiming to have it cancelled ; and by the Treaty of London of 1871, Arts. II, 13, and 14 of the Treaty of Paris and the special Convention annexed, were abrogated, and in lieu there was inserted a simple statement that the ' Black Sea remains open as heretofore to the mercantile marine of all nations.' There had been no war, nor, it is believed, any threat of war between Russia and Turkey during the interval. Whether the existence of these Articles had been any factor in preventing war can hardly be determined. What did happen was that the way in which Russia sought to have these clauses abrogated, and the pretensions which she put forward, had to be met by a special Protocol providing that it is ' an essential principle of the law of nations that none of them can liberate itself from the engage- ments of a Treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting parties by means of an amicable understanding.' ^ What is to be arranged as to these Straits and as to the Black Sea in the Peace after the present War seems to the writer a most difficult problem.* There was in the Treaty of Paris a hopeful * Vide supra, p. 4. • Vide infra. Chapter VIII. = Vide infra, Chapter IX. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 85 Article (Art. 8) by which, in case of any mis- understanding between Turkey and any of the signing Powers, each party agreed that the other Powers should have an opportunity of mediating. This matter was developed in the twenty-third Protocol into an expression of a wish that all States should have, before appealing to arms, recourse, as far as circumstances might allow, to the good offices of a friendly Power,^ and this may be taken as the beginning of those Treaties of Arbitration which, while by no means the panacea that sanguine people expected, have yet done some good work. By Arts. 22 and 27 of the Treaty of Paris, the positions of Moldavia and Wallachia were regulated, and their organization was placed under the collective guarantee of the contracting Powers ; and by Art. 28, the rights of Serbia were placed under a similar guarantee, except that as to the Danubian Principalities the control of the Porte is described as suzerainty, while no such expression is used with respect to Serbia. But in both cases the sovereignty of Turkey was more or less impaired by international contract with the Six Powers, as it had been impaired by contract with Russia in previous times. It may well be that in dealing with the par- ticular circumstances of the case, it was necessary to have a gradual emancipation of the provinces pre-eminently Christian from the dominion of the 1 International Tnbunals, by W. Evans Darby, LL.D., pp. 299, 300. 86 The Treaty History of Eastern Europe Porte ; and Treaties of Guarantee, almost amount- ing to the creation of Protectorates, may in these cases be justified. But it is plain that the position was that of a halfway house towards independence, and that the partial derogation of sovereignty would in time end in an absolute loss ; and the difficulty of a collective guarantee or protectorate is well shown by what happened to Moldavia and Wallachia.^ They were intended to be separate Principalities with separate Princes or Hospodars. A further Convention as to these Principalities had to be made in 1858, between the Six Powers and Turkey, which advanced them a step further on the road towards independence. In 1859, a somewhat reluctant Conference at Paris recog- nised Prince Couza as Hospodar of both Princi- palities. And in 1866 the two Principalities again chose the same Prince — Prince Charles of HohenzoUern — and notwithstanding some dislike on the part of the signing Powers and much unwillingness on the part of Turkey, his title had to be recognised, and the two Principalities became one, soon to be called Roumania, and to procure its independence by the Treaty of Berlin, 1878 (Art. 43), and become a kingdom' later, in May, 1881.2 As has been already indicated, the European ^ As to suzerainty, see a valuable treatise by Dr. Charles Stubbs, 1882. " There was a further treaty between the Six Powers and Turkey enlarging the rights of Serbia, 1862. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 87 Provinces of Turkey remained in an unsettled and unhappy condition. At last revolts in Bosnia and Bulgaria, put down — ^in the latter case at any rate — with cir- cumstances of great atrocity by Turkey, led to Serbia declaring war, for the sake of her co- nationalists and co-religionists, in 1876. On March 31, 1877, the Six Great Powers formulated a Protocol in which they agreed upon the con- ditions which should be applied to Christians in Turkey and on reforms to be made in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Bulgaria. The Porte met this by a protest on April 9 ; and the Powers as a collective body were not prepared to go further than words. So Russia, on April 24, declared war against Turkey, and Roumania declared her Independence on June 3, and joined forces with Russia. As Russia began to be successful the Ministers of Great Britain were alarmed ; and on January 14, 1878, the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg communicated a Memorandum to the effect that : Any Treaty concluded between the Governments of Russia and the Porte affecting the Treaties of 1856 and 1871 must be a European Treaty, and would not be valid without the Eissent of the Powers who were parties to those Treaties. On March 3, 1878, Russia and Turkey con- cluded the Peace of San Stefano. Thereupon, as Great Britain had already required, but upon the formal demand of Austria, the Six Powers and Turkey met in Congress at Berhn, and the Treaty of Berhn, July 13, 1878, was made. This war and this peace constitute the second source 88 The Treaty History of Eastern Europe from which the flood of the present trouble has sprung. The treaty did not produce a state of rest in Turkey. It went too far for Turkish absolutism and not far enough in relieving the Christians and disposing of the claims of the various competing Christian nationalities and churches. It may be fairly said that the changes made by the Treaty of Berhn were so vast that it was impossible to foresee the results in all their bearings, and that the stipulations of the treaty were necessarily temporary and provisional. But there are other objections to be made. The Five Great Powers who intervened between Russia and Turkey professed to enter upon the negotia- tions with the object of securing the Balance of Power, and of providing for the welfare of the oppressed populations, while reconciling with these objects the legitimate claims of Russia as a vic- torious belligerent. But in the result it proved that several of the Powers were not so disinterested. Russia acquired as her compensation a con- siderable increase of territory in Asia, fettered by a provision as to the port of Batoum — a fetter which she shook off on July 5, 1886. She acquired also, nominally from Turkey but practically from her own Ally Roumania, portions of Bessarabia which she had ceded in 1856. Of the other Five Great Powers, Great Britain, who had been the first to interpose to deprive Russia of the fruits of her victory, was found to have made her own bargain with Turkey. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 89 By a Convention of Jvine 24, 1878, made between her and Turkey, it was agreed that in the event of Russia insisting upon retaining certain of her conquests in Asia Minor, Great Britain should enter into a defensive alliance with Turkey protecting the residue of her Asiatic territory. Then follow these words : In return, his Imperial Majesty the Sultan promises to England to introduce necessary reforms, to be agreed upon later between the two Powers, into the government, and for the protection of the Christian and other subjects of the Porte in these territories ; and in order to enable England to make necessary provision for executing her engagement his Imperial Majesty the Sultan further consents to assign the Island of Cyprus to be occupied and administered by England. There was an annex to this treaty by which it was provided that Great Britain should pay to the Siiltan as a quasi-tribute a sum equal to the then nett revenues of the island. Russia, as it was expected, did insist upon retaining her Asiatic conquests, and so Cjrprus passed to Great Britain. It was not a large acquisition, but still the acquisition removed Great Britain from the category of disinterested Powers. She was never called upon to fulfil her part of the Convention, as, by an irony of fate, she has ended by being at war with Turkey, and helping Russia to conquer the Turkish provinces in Asia. As to the Porte performing its part of the contract, the massacres of the Armenians afford the only known answer. It is to be hoped that, when diplomatic secrets are revealed, it will be go The Treaty History of Eastern Europe found that the statesmen of Great Britain made some use of the power of interference on behalf of the oppressed races which the Convention certainly gave them. Next comes Austria. She obtained the right to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, of which more hereafter. France made no immediate gain. It is said that when her Ministers complained of the bargain as to Cyprus, they were told that they might acquire in their turn a position in Tunis. This was obtained by France in 1881. There remain as disinterested Powers only Italy and Germany. Italy has since acquired Tripoh. Germany contented herself with the policy of peaceful penetration, and has not unnaturally reaped her reward in the friendship and alliance of Turkey. It would now be convenient to deal with the clauses of this, the last great European Treaty. First, as to Bulgaria. In the Treaty of San Stefano it was proposed that she should form a large State stretching from the Danube over the Balkans into Macedonia, reaching the ^Egean and including much territory now forming part of Serbia or of Greece. The Powers, in their wisdom, thought that this would be creating too powerful a Dependency of Russia ; and so Bulgaria was con- verted into two quasi-States — Bulgaria Proper, which was to occupy a position similar to that intended to be occupied by Roumania and Serbia, and Eastern Roumelia, a much reduced area to Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace gi the south of the Balkans to be administered by a Governor-General for Turkey, and with less autonomy than the tributary States. It is not necessary now to discuss these somewhat subtle distinctions which were rapidly obliterated. The two areas are provided for in the first twenty- one Articles of the Treaty. Bulgaria was to pay tribute. There were a number of constitutional pro- visions, one being that the Prince should be freely elected by the population and confirmed by the SubUme Porte with the consent of the Powers. No membei of any of the reigning Houses of the Great European Powers could be elected Prince. Art. 5 contained provisions which were intro- duced almost in the same words into the Con- stitution of Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro, and in a stronger form into that of Roumania. All these States seem to have been considered as in leading strings and not to be trusted to work out their own liberties. As an expression of what is desirable, of what diplomatists call a vceu, these provisions are admirable. If it was intended to give any of the Treaty Powers a right to enforce them, they would afford ground for very mischievous interference. The language is as follows : . . . the following points shall form the basis of the public law of Bulgaria : A difference of religious beliefs or confessions shall not exclude or incapacitate any person from the enjoyment of 92 The Treaty History of Eastern Europe civil and political rights, admission to public appointments, functions, or honours, or from the exercise of the various professions and employments, in any district whatever. Liberty, and the public exercise of all religions, shall be assured to aU persons belonging to Bulgaria, as well as to strangers, and no obstacle shall be interposed either to the hierarchical organisation of the different communions, or to their connection with their spiritual heads. The fine spun plans for dividing and vi^eakening Bulgaria were of little avail. Prince Alexander of Battenberg,^ the first Prince of Bulgaria, succeeded in acquiring possession of Eastern Roumelia. Bulgaria became involved in war with Serbia from November 14, 1885, to March 3, 1886 ; and on April 5, 1886, the Powers recognised the inevitable and saved their faces by pur- porting, with the assent of Turkey, to entrust the Governor-Generalship of Eastern Roumelia to Prince Alexander. Prince Alexander was succeeded by Prince Ferdinand of Saxe Coburg.^ Matters were in a very uncertain state for some time ; but in 1896 the latter was formally appointed by the Sultan — with the consent of the Great Powers — Prince and Governor-General ; and on October 5, 1908, he publicly proclaimed that the two provinces were united, and made himself independent King, paying an indemnity to Turkey in lieu of the tribute and of taxes. Greece comes next in the order of the treaty, but it would be convenient to postpone her case. 1 Elected July 27, 1879, dethroned August 21, 1886. " Elected August 14, 1887. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 93 By Art. 25, it is provided that : The Provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary. The Govern- ment of Austria-Hungary, not desiring to undertake the administration of the Sandjak of Novi-Bazar, which extends between Servia and Montenegro in a south-easterly direction to the other side of Mitrovitza, the Ottoman administration win remain in force there. Notwithstanding, in order to assure the maintenance of the new political state of affairs as well as freedom and security of communications, Austria- Hungary reserves the right of keeping garrisons and having miUtary and commercial roads in the whole of this part of the ancient Vilayet of Bosnia. With this object the Govern- ments of Austria-Hungary and Turkey reserve to themselves to come to an imderstanding as to the details. This arrangement was made without consulta- tion of the population and without any considera- tion for it. The two provinces are occupied by a South Slavonic population, partly Roman Catholic, partly Mohammedan, but mainly belong- ing to the Orthodox Church. Those of the two latter religions certainly resented their subjection to Austria ; and their opposition was put down with much violence and bloodshed, the Austrians having a very heavy hand. In 1908, Austria, with hardly any pretext to cover her action, affected to turn her occupation into complete sovereignty, and to annex the provinces to her Empire. It had been expressly stipulated in an agreement signed by the Austro- Hungarian and Ottoman Plenipotentiaries at Berlin, that when the good administration of the provinces had been established, they should be evacuated by Austria and restored to Turkey. 94 The Treaty History of Eastern Europe The annexation was a flagrant breach of this agreement. Naturally, Austria-Hungary has been uneasy ever since. Naturally, she has dreaded the tendency of the Slavonic population to gravitate towards Serbia. Not unnaturally, she suspected Serbian agents of having a part in the massacre of the Archduke in 1914. Hence her outrageous demands upon Serbia which formed the pretext of the present war. Montenegro is the subject of Arts. 26 to 33. She was already an independent State, but her independence was now formally recognised. The same condition as to religious freedom was imposed upon her as upon the new States, and she was given an increase of territory. But the Sandjak of Novi-bazar was carefully preserved to Turkey, so as to prevent any union between Serbia and Montenegro, and any formation of an im- portant South Slavonic State. This again was due to the jealousy of Austria-Hungary. Serbia was recognised as an independent Prin- cipality and her status was provided for in the same way, by Arts. 34 to 42, and she was to bear a portion of the public debt of Turkey. Roumania was made independent condition- ally upon her restoring Bessarabian territory to Russia, and upon her complying with the terms of Art. 44, which is as follows : Art. 44. In Roumania the difference of religious creeds and confessions shall not be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil and political rights, admission Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 95 to public employments, functions, and honours, or the exer- cise of various professions and industries in any locality whatsoever. The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship will be assured to all persons belonging to the Roumanian State, as well as to foreigners, and no hindrance shall be offered either to the hierarchical organisation of the different communions, or to their relations with their spiritual chiefs. The nationals of all the Powers, traders or others, shall be treated in Roumania without distinction of creed, on a footing of perfect equality.^ She and the navigation of the Danube are the subjects of Arts. 43 to 57 of the treaty. Arts. 58 to 60 relate to the cession by Turkey of territories in Asia to Russia. By Art. 61, which deals with the unhappy Armenians : The Sublime Porte undertakes to carry out without further delay the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by the Cir- cassians and Kurds. It will periodically make known the steps taken to this effect to the Powers who will superintend their application . By Art. 62 : The Sublime Porte having expressed the intention to maintain the principle of religious liberty and give it the widest scope, the Contracting Parties take note of this spon- taneous declaration. Then come details as to religious liberty, equal political rights. Christian evidence before tri- bunals, protection of ecclesiastics, representa- 1 Comment has already been made on this provision. It may be added that as to the Jews, whom it was intended to protect, it was futile. 96 The Treaty History of Eastern Europe tions by diplomatists and consular agents, with a saving of the rights of France and her status quo in the Holy Places, and the rights and prerogatives of all naonks of Mount Athos. No doubt foreign ecclesiastics and the specially protected monks have been allowed to enjoy the benefit of these provisions. But as to the Christian subjects of the Porte in Macedonia and the Armenians in Asia, their lot remained as hard and in some cases harder than ever. Such clauses, as has been already observed, are useless if not mischievous. By Art. 63, the Treaties of 1856 and 1 871 were, so far as they were not abrogated or modified, confirmed. Now as to Greece. A protocol of Feb. 3, 1830, intervening between the Treaties of Adrianople, 1829, and London, 1832, had given her a restricted territory which was in principle unjustifiable, and a frontier which was absurd.^ She had been strengthened by the acquisition of the Ionian Islands, as already mentioned ; and in respect of them, as well as of her original territory, she remained as under the protectorate and guarantee of Great Britain, France, and Russia. By Art. 24 of the Treaty of Berlin, provision was made for what was called a rectification of frontier, which was in fact to give her Thessaly and a portion of Epirus. ' Leopold, afterwards King of the Belgians, refused the kingdom of Greece, because of these narrow limits, and because Crete did not form part of the proposed kingdom. There is a good general article on Greece in the Encycloptsdia Briiannica. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 97 The greatest difficulties arose about this. The Six Powers, whose mediation had been provided for, had to fix the boundary themselves, and to compel its acceptance by Turkey by force. Eventually, the boundary was settled in 1881. When Bulgaria became united, Greek f eehng was roused and the Greeks had to be kept quiet by what was called ' a peaceful blockade,' a very anomalous operation established by several of the Great Powers in 1886. Then the Cretan difficulty arose. By Art. 23 the Sultan undertook 'scrupu- lously to apply in the Island of Crete the organic law of 1868, while introducing into it the modifica- tions which may be considered equitable.' And there were further stipvilations which it is un- necessary to mention, because the Porte never intended to perform them, and did not in fact perform them. The Cretans rose in insurrection in 1907, and the Greeks declared war upon Turkey. They were beaten and had to cede a smaU portion of the territory that they had gained in 1881, and pay an indemnity. Crete was then put under a High Commissioner. Prince George of Greece was made High Commissioner; and since Crete has been annexed to Greece. All these developments of the Treaty of Berlin — the formation of a united Bulgaria, the struggle between Serbia and Bulgaria, and the enlarge- ment of Greece — ^left those, which it is convenient to call 'the Balkan Powers,' and the national aspirations of their peoples still unsatisfied, and gS The Treaty History of Eastern Europe in October, 1912, the Balkan League, consisting of Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia, declared war upon Turkey, and after a victorious campaign received considerable accessions of territory by the Peace of May 30, 1913. Unfortunately, however, disputes arose be- tween Bulgaria on the one side, and Greece and Serbia on the other, which led to a war between them, breaking out on June 30, and concluded by a Peace at Bucharest on August 6. Roumania came into this war as against Bulgaria, and the result was that Bulgaria lost aU round. The Turks took the opportunity of recovering Adrian- ople, which they had been forced to cede to her. Roumania took Silistria and a considerable further portion of the Dobrudja from her ; and Serbia and Greece obtained in substance what they had demanded at her expense. The soreness which was left has led to Bulgaria joining in the attack upon Serbia made in the present war, and becoming the Ally of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and her old enemy Turkey. On the other hand, Greece, who had entered into a defensive alliance with Serbia as against Bulgaria, when called upon by Serbia for her assistance, rephed, rightly or wrongly, that the casus foederis had not arisen, and refused to help her ; and though Greece owes her origin and her growth in 1881, and her deliverance from Turkey when she was beaten in 1897, to the three Powers, Great Britain, France, and Russia ; the accretion of her territory by the Ionian Islands Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 99 to Great Britain ; and the pecuniary appanage of her Sovereign to the generosity of the three Powers, she under her late king had to be com- pelled by force to remain neutral and abstain from helping the enemies of the three Powers.^ If the Greater Bulgaria provided by the Treaty of San Stefano had been left, the arrangement might have been injurious to the Serbian and Greek nationalities, but as between Bulgaria and Turkey it would only have been an anticipation of what happened in 1912. There would probably have been no war of 1912, and very likely no War of Partition between the Balkan States in 1913. The Western Provinces of Turkey, separated by Greater Bulgaria, would have naturally fallen to Serbia, Greece, and Montenegro, with perhaps a separate Principality of Albania.^ The half-measure of the Treaty of Paris in 1856 brought constant xmrest and ever-increasing strife till the Russo-Turkish war of 1877. The further half-measures of the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 left their legacy of strife and warfare, which was only partially settled by the Treaty of 1913, and is, as has already been said, one of the principal causes of the present War. Next time the position of the Balkan States should be decisively and finally settled. 1 The abdication of Constantine, King of Greece, is already leading to different results. ' The author of Nationalism and the War in the Near East (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Oxford, 1915) also takes this view. See pp. 72, 73. CHAPTER VI EXTRA- EUROPEAN TREATIES OF PEACE The United States of America have had few wars. Confederations, as a rule, do not fight. Their entry into the present War is the more noteworthy. They have had two great internal struggles, one during the War of Independence and the other during the War of Secession ; and they have had two wars against Great Britain, the War of Independence and the War of 1812. They have had wars with Mexico and one with Spain ; and they entered into military operations, which were not precisely war, against Japan, ending happily in a Treaty of Commerce in 1854. The Treaty of Versailles in 1783, which estab- lished their independence, does not afford many' subjects of comment. It was a treaty of recog- nition not of future stipulations. Notice has already been taken of the diffi- culties which were experienced in drawing the boundaries between the United States and Canada, as so much of the boundary passed at that time through unsurveyed land.^ • Vide supra, pp. 7, 31. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace loi The other matter in the treaty is that of Fisheries. Great Britain consented generously but unwisely to give to the fishermen of the United States special rights of fishing in British North American waters ; and their rights have been the subject of pretty frequent dispute. Further provision had to be made for them in a treaty of 1818 and again in 1854. They were a matter of arbitration at the same time as the more important Alabama claims and San Juan boundary dispute in 1871. In 1907 a Modus Vivendi, as it was called, a temporary arrangement, was established by Convention ; and finally, in 1909, the parties went again to Arbitration. This is a strong example of the objections to such obligations. The Treaty of Ghent, 1814, was in substance a restoration of the status quo ante, and calls for no special mention here, except that there is an interesting stipulation that Great Britain shall come to terms with the warring Indian tribes, and a declaration against the Slave Trade. The War with Mexico in 1846-1848 ended in the cession by the latter of Texas, New Mexico, and Northern California, in return for a money payment by the United States. There were later Boundary Treaties with Mexico in'^1853 and 1884; but there are no special provisions calling for remark, except that in 1853 the United States stipulated for a right of free transit from one ocean to the other across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 102 Extra-European Treaties of Peace Important as the war was with Spain, large as were the American gains and the Spanish losses, there are no special lessons to be drawn from the Treaty of Paris, 1898, which brought the war to a conclusion. The treaty recorded the conquests of the United States, Spain ceded what she had lost. Porto Rico, Guam in the Ladrone Islands, and the Philippine Islands were ceded to the United States. (Arts. 2 and 3.) As to Cuba, there was an unusual provision. Spain relinquished her sovereignty, but there was no cession to the United States. Only it was provided that the United States should occupy the island for the time and protect life and pro- perty. (Art. I.) This was because the United States were not going to annex Cuba, but to constitute a dependent and protected Republic, an arrangement which was efiected by a treaty of 1903 between the two Republics. As to details, there are some instructive clauses in the Treaty of Paris which future diplomatists may note. In lieu of the usual clauses providing for indemnities to private persons, each State relinquished all claims to indemnity, national or individual. (Art. 7.) ' Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula '— i.e., Spaniards proper — might remove themselves or their goods, or could remain in the ceded terri- tories and yet preserve their allegiance to Spain if they made a formal declaration. (Art. 9.) By Art. 10, ' The inhabitants of the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her Sovereignty Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 103 shall be secured in the free exercise of their religion.' It is curious that the usual clause stipulating Peace and Amity does not appear in this treaty. But there was a supplementary Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1902 dealing with general relations between the two States, by Art. 29 of which all treaties prior to the Treaty of Paris (except the Treaty of February 17, 1834) were to be deemed annulled. Mexico has twice provoked wars with European Powers by her injuries to subjects of those States and her refusal or inability to make redress. But the writer is not aware that there is anything in the subsequent Treaties of Peace which calls for remark. The ill-fated expedition of the Emperor Maximilian, under the encouragement of Napoleon IIL, was brought to a close as far as France was concerned by the simple withdrawal of her forces ; and Maximilian was put to death by Juarez in 1867. Many of the European Powers have been nearly at war with Venezuela. Great Britain had a serious dispute about territory which, through the medium of the United States, was referred to arbitration in 1897. In 1903, a number of States had claims for compensation which it was obvious that Venezuela would be unable to meet in full. Some had claims to preferential treatment ; and this question was by common assent referred to the Tribunal at The Hague, which decided in 1904 that these claims were entitled to preference. 104 Extra-European Treaties of Peace Since the States of Central and South America fought for and obtained their independence of Spain, they do not seem to have been at actual war with any European Power. Treaties of Peace with Asiatic Powers generally proceed on such different lines that they would not be helpful for the purposes of this work. But there are two Treaties of Peace to which Japan has been a party, proceeding upon modern and European lines, which therefore should be mentioned. The last war (the only one of modern days) between Japan and China was brought to an end by the Treaty of Shimonoseki, 1895. Its pro- visions were characterised by much simplicity. The cause of the war was the claim of China to the suzerainty of Corea. Art. i of the treaty declared the complete independence of Corea. Arts. 2, 3, and 4 provided for the compensation of Japan in territory and money. The ceded territory comprised the Peninsula of Fengtsen upon the Continent of Asia, the Island of Formosa, and the Pescadores Islands. The acquisition of the Peninsula was subse- quently abandoned by Japan in deference to the remonstrances of Russia, Germany, and France. But this action, on the part of Russia especially, was bitterly felt in Japan, and became one of the causes of the Russo-Japanese War. In Art. 5 the usual modern European provision as to the inhabitants of the ceded territory was adopted. They were allowed a period (in this case two Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 105 years) to dispose of their lands and remove them- selves and their goods. If they remained after that period they became Japanese subjects. In Art. 6 the vexed juridical question whether war puts an end to previous treaties was solved ^ by declaring that in this case it had done so ; and provision was made for a new treaty of commerce and navigation, and regulation of frontier lines. China contracted also to open certain ports to the Japanese. Art. 8 provided an instance of the victor taking a material guarantee for the conditions which he exacted. The Japanese were temporarily to occupy Wei Hai Wei. The remaining Arts. 7, 9, 10, relate to the exchange of prisoners, the evacuation of terri- tories, and the cessation of hostilities. ^ When the prisoners on both sides were restored, China promised not to maltreat or punish her own sub- jects given back to her by Japan. She engaged also to release all Japanese accused of espionage or military offences, and not to punish any of her subjects who might have compromised them- selves by their relations with the Japanese during the war. If any of her African colonies should be restored to Germany, it would be well to follow the pre- cedent set by this last clause, which is an extension of the usual form.' The Treaty of Portsmouth, 1905, between Japan * Vide infra. Chapter VIII. s See the Treaty in Ariga, La Guerre Sino-Japonaise. Paris, 1896. ' Vide infra, Chapter IX. io6 Extra-European Treaties of Peace and Russia, was of a much less usual stamp. Professor Ariga remarks that it would require a volume to consider all the questions which it raises.^ The land war was fought in Manchuria, which was neither Russian nor Japanese, but Chinese. It is true that Russia had a lease from China of Port Arthur and other territorial rights ; and this war showed (as does the present war in which the Japanese have besieged and taken the territory leased to Germany by China) what complications such a form of territorial sovereignty brings with it. Hence, in the Treaty of Ports- mouth there was, strictly speaking, only one cession of territory, that was the cession of half the Island of Sakhaline by Russia to Japan ; but if actualities are looked at, Russia lost and Japan gained (always it was provided with the consent of China) Port Arthur and the railway and the mines ; and the consent of China being necessary, each of the contracting parties engaged that it would procure this consent. Further, the Japanese gave an assurance, as if Port Arthur were their own, that the rights of Russians to their property there should be respected. (Arts. 5 and 6.) Then each agreed by Art. 3 to evacuate Chinese territory and to restore it to China, while Russia declared that she had no pretensions which would interfere with Chinese sovereignty. By Art. 4 each undertook not to interfere with the measures which China might take to develop Manchuria ; 1 Ariga, La Guerre Russo-Japonaise. Paris, 1908. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 107 and Arts. 7 and 8 provided for the regulation of their railways in Manchuria. So that the treaty sometimes appears as if it were made for the benefit of China, though she is no party to it, sometimes as if there were no China, or as if she need not be consulted as to Manchuria. Art. 2 dealt with Corea. Russia, recognising that Japan possessed ' predominant interests, political, military, and economic,' engaged not to intervene or put any obstacle in the way of any measures of direction, protection, or control, which the Japanese Government might consider it necessary to take in Corea.^ This treaty adopted the same juridical rule that former treaties were to be considered as having been annulled by the war, but provided that till there was a new Treaty of Commerce each State should be treated by the other on the footing of the most favoured nation. (Art. 12.) There was the usual clause (Art. 10) providing for the inhabitants of the ceded territory ; but, contrary to the usual custom, those who con- tinued to reside did not become Japanese ^ The treaty was signed in French and EngUsh, but if there was any divergence the French text was to prevail. Professor Ariga gives the French text, and it is well to give it here : ' Le Gouvernement Imperial de Russie, reconnaissant que la Japon poss6de en Cor6e des interSts pr6dominants politiques, militaires et 6cononiiques, s'engage k ne point intervenir ni mettre d'obstacle aux mesures de direction, de protection et de contrdle que le Gouvernement Imperial de Japon pourrait consid6rer n^cessaires de prendre en Cor6e.' Some supplementary provisions follow. io8 Extra- European Treaties of Peace subjects ; and Japan might require them to leave the country. The expense of the keep of prisoners on both sides was to be calculated, and Russia which had taken the fewer prisoners was to pay the difference. This is a useful provision, which might be re- membered when the new treaty is prepared. By this treaty, as has been said, ' the para- mount political, military, and economic interests ' of Japan in Corea were recognised by Russia, as they were recognised by Great Britain in her Treaty of Alliance with Japan of the same year. This recognition of predominant influence is, like the phrase ' sphere of influence ' in the Berlin Act of 1885, as to Africa, and in the Convention between Great Britain and Germany of i8go, as to spheres of influence in East, West, and South- west Africa, as far as the writer's knowledge goes, a modern provision in diplomacy. But the principle underlying it is not wholly new, though generally applied to the case of small States in a special relation with their immediate great neighbour, such as Ragusa with Venice ; Geneva, . before she became a complete part of the Swiss Confederation, with France ; Monaco, first with Sardinia and then after the cession of the County of Nice, with France ; Nepaul with Great Britain. Recently similar arrangements of mutual recog- nition of spheres of influence have been made between Great Britain and France as to Siam in 1904, and Great Britain and Russia as to Persia in 1907. In these cases there is the remarkable Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 109 restilt that the spheres of influence cut another, presumably independent, State into two> As to Corea, the effect of China yielding up her claims to suzerainty, and of Russia and Great Britain's recognising the predominant interests of Japan, is that she has been, as any one would have predicted, annexed by Japan, with very doubtful benefit to her people. The African treaties are also outside the scope of this essay; and the important ones are not Treaties of Peace, that is, treaties concluding war. But there are certain Congress treaties of such value as having hitherto prevented war, that there should be a brief mention of them. The Berlin Act, February 26, 1885, which was signed by fourteen Powers, provided for freedom of trade in the basin of the Congo, the neutrality of the territories in its basin, the navigation of the Congo and of the Niger, and rules for future occupation of African territory. It recognised the division of a great part of Africa into European pos- sessions, protectorates, and ' spheres of influence,' the phrase which has just been mentioned. On August I of the same year the King of the Belgians notified his possession of the Congo State and took the title of Sovereign of the Independent State of the Congo. 2 The Berlin Act did its best to provide 1 In the case of Siam the division is into three parts : basin of Mekong, French ; and basin of Salwin, British ; while the basin of Meenan is claimed by neither. ' The State was ceded to Belgium in 1907. no Extra-European Treaties of Peace for the neutrality of the Congo State by the following Article. (Chap. 2., Art. iii.) In case a Power exercising rights of Sovereignty or Protectorate in the countries mentioned in Art. i (Basin of the Congo as defined) and placed under the Free Trade system, shall be involved in war, then the High Signatory Parties to this present Act and those who shall hereafter adopt it, bind themselves to lend their good offices, in order that the territories belonging to this Power and comprised in the Conventional free trade zone shall, by the common consent of this Power and of the other belligerent or belUge- rents, be placed during the war under the rule of neutraJity and considered as belonging to a non-belligerent State, the belligerents thenceforth abstaining from extending hostilities to the territories thus neutralised and from using them as a base for warlike operations. And the King of the Belgians in his proclama- tion of August 1, 1885, claimed the benefit of this Article. Needless to say that as the neutrality of Belgium has not been respected in the present War, the Congo State has also been involved, notwithstanding this provision. On July I, 1890, Great Britain and Germany entered into a Convention regulating their re- spective spheres of influence in East, West, and South-west Africa, and Germany recognised the Protectorate of Great Britain over those dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar which were not to be ceded to Germany — as 'certain portions of the Sultan's territory were in the following October. This was the occasion when Great Britain ceded to Germany Heligoland, the island which she had conquered from Denmark in the Napoleonic Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace iii Wars, and kept at the Peace of 1815, because it had been so valuable to her, but which she in 1890 deemed of small value, little reckoning of its future terrible importance. France also in 1890 recognised Great Britain's Protectorate of Zanzibar. In 1904 France and Great Britain exchanged recognitions of each other's respective peculiar interests in Morocco and Egypt, and Spain adhered to this declaration. Finally, in 1906, there was a general treaty, to which the Six Great Powers, Belgium, the Nether- lands, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, the United States, and Morocco were parties, regulating the affairs of this latter country. Though she had been a party to this Treaty, Germany by her aggression at Agadir nearly precipitated war in 1911, and showed to the statesmen of France, at any rate, if not to others, that its advent was only the matter of a few years. CHAPTER VII TREATIES CONCERNING THE LAWS OF WAR The laws of war may be divided into two classes — those which provide for fair and regulated fighting between belligerents,^ and those which provide for the relations between belligerents and neutrals. The first class may be subdivided as follows : There are those unwritten laws which have existed as long as there has been any formal warfare of which we know in history, such as that a flag of truce must be respected ; that a prisoner whose surrender has been accepted must not be put to death, at any rate immediately and with- out trial ; that a spy is liable to instant execution. These are elementary cases and are only given as instances. Secondly, there are treaties between pairS of nations, making written laws as between themselves or providing for concessions from the strict laws of war, which they engage to make to each other in the event of their ever being at war. Thirdly, international conventions making written laws for the greater part of the world. » See Sir T. E. Holland's book, The Laws of War on Land. 112 Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 113 The defect of all these laws is the difficulty of their enforcement owing to the slightness or inefficiency of their sanction or of punishnaent for their breach. If, when two nations are at war, one of the belligerents violates any rule of any one of the three classes, the only thing that the injured can do is to fight all the harder, and to appeal to neutrals, in the hope that then or thereafter the moral sense of the civilised world will pronounce judgment — securus judicat orhis terrarum?- There are cases, few and far between, where something more can be done even flagrante hello. There are instances where reprisals can be used with effect. If open towns are bombarded, and the injured belligerent has the means, he may bombard similar towns of his enemy; and if he does this, not by way of retaliation but after notice that if such outrages are committed he will retort, and by retorting teaches the enemy the consequence of his acts and deters him from future outrages, it seems to the writer that the act is not only warranted but even required. So, if prisoners are ill-treated, after due warn- ing, similar treatment may be — as has been done in this War — applied to the prisoners of the other side. But there is no use in reprisals unless you are in fact the stronger side. If you cannot bombard, at least, as many or more of the open • The writer discussed this matter in an essay written for the Grotius Society on ' The Destruction of Merchantmen by a Belligerent,' vol. ii. of the Society's publications, pp. 175, 176. 114 Treaties concerning the Laws of War towns of the other beUigerent, if you have not prisoners, at least as many or more, j'-ou must hold your hand and suffer for the time. There is another sanction which can be applied after war, but only by the victorious belligerent, or in cases where the belligerents are fairly equally balanced. Stipulations may then be made as part of the conditions of peace, either for a special indemnity to be paid to the victims of outrages, or for a special trial and punishment of individuals who have offended against the laws of war, unwritten or written. Thus the United States, at the conclusion of the War of Secession, punished certain Southerners who were deemed to have ill-treated Northern prisoners. Otherwise the sanction is only a moral one. It is not, however, without value, and gradually by the consent of nations or (as Grotius would put it) by the consent of Christian nations, certain usages limiting the extreme ferocity of war have grown up, faded away again, and then again revived, and had acquired — one would have said till recent events — an assured and certain existence for more than a century. Only a few examples need be given : that prisoners should not be tortured or sold into slavery ; that some consideration should be given to non- combatants — for instance, if they were found in a ship captured at sea they should not be left to drown, or exposed in an open boat ; or if on land, with the single exception or excuse Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 115 of hot blood during an assault, they should not be killed or bodily injured. ' These unwritten laws or customs have been supplemented by treaty. First, by treaties between single States, by which in time of peace they agree together what they will do or refrain from doing to each other should war break out between them. The logic of these agreements is questionable. Ex hypothesi, the general Treaty of Peace and Amity between the two States is broken, and yet certain pro- visions of that same treaty are to remain unbroken — indeed, are to come into operation because of the greater breach. There is some parallel to this in some of the more elaborate mercantile contracts of modern date.^ But in such contracts there are the judicial tribunals to enforce such a stipulation. There is no tribunal to judge between the warring States. It can only be a matter of reprisals during war, or a topic for consideration in the terms of the succeeding Peace. Still these pro- visions have been not infrequent in treaties. Some are of ancient date. In the treaty between Great Britain and the States General in 1667, by Art. 32, in the event of war, enemies' merchant ships in port, and the goods of enemies on land, are not to be confiscated, and six months are to be allowed to the subjects of the other nation resident in the 1 See Zinc Corporation, Ltd. v. Hirsch. L.R. 1916, i K.B. 541, and especially p. 561. ii6 Treaties concerning the Laws of War country to transport their goods, ' whither they should think fit.' The United States, shortly after their Inde- pendence, began to introduce similar clauses into general Treaties of Commerce which they made with other nations. By a treaty with Prussia made in 1799, which expired in 1810 but was renewed by a treaty of 1828 (Art. 23), nine months were in certain events to be allowed in case of war to the sub- jects of one belligerent to remove themselves and their goods ; and there were further privileges of exemption from the ordinary liabilities of war for certain classes of persons. The effect of these provisions has quite lately come into consideration. It may also be noted that there is a special provision (Art. 24) for the humane treatment of prisoners of war. By the Treaty of Commerce of 1843, made by the United States with the Argentine Confedera- tion (Art. 12) it seems to be provided that in case of war, citizens of either nation may remain and trade peacefully in the other country. In a treaty of 1858 made with Bolivia, in the event of war, merchants are to have six months if at the ports, twelve months if in the interior, to arrange their affairs ; and all other persons may remain in the country and keep their personal hberty and property (Art. 28). This Article is a common form clause which had already found its way into treaties with other States in Central and South America. It appears Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 117 in the following treaties : With Brazil, 1828 ; Central America, 1825 ; Chili, 1832 ; New Granada, 1846 ; Costa Rica, 1851 ; Ecuador, 1839 '> Guate- mala, 1849 '> Mexico, 1831 and 1848 ; Salvador, 1850. It appears in a wider form in the treaty with Peru of 1836, Twelve months in all cases was given by the treaty with Spain of 1795 ; but that is not one of the treaties whch have been renewed since the war between the two countries. These treaties may be considered as in some sense the precursors of the Convention No. 6 of the Second Peace Conference at The Hague in 1907. A stride towards humanity was taken by the first Geneva Convention of 1864, giving neutrality and protection to ambulances and military hos- pitals, surgeons, bearers, chaplains, and inhabi- tants of the country who might bring help to the wounded, with a further provision that the wounded or sick soldiers should be entertained and taken care of, to whichever nation they might belong, and that those who were incapable by wounds of further serving should be released and sent home.^ Another step was the Declaration of St. Peters- burg of 1868, prohibiting the use of certain explo- sive projectiles because of the excessive torture which wounds given by them would inflict. There was also a Conference on the Laws of War held at Brussels in 1874 ; but no decisive conclusions were then reached. Art. 10 of the * Further Geneva Conventions are those of 1868, principally as to maritime warfare (unratified), and 1906. Ii8 Treaties concerning the Laws of War Draft Declaration then put forth could hardly have been accepted by Germany without condem- nation of her action in the Franco-German War.^ In 1899, this matter was taken seriously in hand at The Hague, and Conventions — No. 2, con- cerning the laws and customs of war on land ; and No. 3, adapting the principles of the Geneva Con- vention to maritime warfare — were framed, and received the' adherence of almost all civilised nations.^ Three declarations, however, were not so uni- versally accepted. No. I, prohibiting for five years the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons ; No. 2, prohibiting the use of projectiles con- taining asphyxiating or deleterious gases ; and No. 3, prohibiting the use of expanding bullets. Great Britain signed none of them. The United, States did not sign Nos. 2 and 3. No. i lapsed after five years.^ The Second Hague Conference of 1907 pro- posed modifications and improvements in these ' The population of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops, without having had time to organise themselves in conformity with Art. 9, shall be considered as belligerents, if they respect the laws and customs of war. " The Hague Peace Conferences, by A. Pearce Higgins, pp. 257, 273, et seq. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Signatures, etc., to the Conventions and Declarations of the First and Second Hague Peace Conferences. ' Where the Conventions of 1907 have not been ratified, it is necessary to go back upon the Conventions of 1899, which remained in force till denunciation, and therefore were in force at the outbreak of the present war. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace iig several Conventions and added others. But though the proposed alterations were carried by votes of the majority of the States present, none of the new Conventions were universally ratified in their entirety. Convention No, 4, concerning the laws and customs of war on land, which took the place of the former No. 2, was generally ratified except in respect of one article. Convention No. 9, con- cerning bombardment by naval forces in time of war ; No. 10, adapting the principles of the Geneva Convention to maritime warfare, which took the place of the former No. 3 ; and a declara- tion similar to No. i of 1899, prohibiting 'the dis- charge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature ' till the Third Conference met, failed to secure general ratification.'- It is not proposed to discuss these Conventions and Declarations in detail. Probably the experi- ence of this War will show that improvements, and particularly further clearness and positiveness in the expressions, greater sharpness of outline should be introduced at some further Congress held for this purpose at the end of the War. These are matters for military and naval experts, but there is a more important considera- tion. There is no doubt that the rules of Geneva and of The Hague have been broken in several cases. It is of no use having these rules, it is 1 Pearce Higgins, pp. 53°. 53i- Carnegie Endowment, ubi supra. 120 Treaties concerning the Laws of War of no use trying to improve them, unless there be some security for their enforcement. Provisions for this purpose will be suggested in Chapter IX. So much for the laws of war as between belligerents. Now for treaties dealing with the rights and duties of belligerents in relation to neutrals. There is a great bulk of jurisprudence on this subject to be found in Acts of State, Treaties of Commerce, and Decisions of Prize Courts. Questions on this branch of the subject arise most frequently in maritime warfare. Here the belligerent may desire to exercise three rights, any one of which will bring him into difficult relations with neutrals. The catchwords are Blockade, Contraband, and Capture of Private Property at Sea.^ By declaring and enforcing a blockade of an enemy's port, the belligerent invests it and prevents ingress and egress of ships and cargoes. This is an unquestioned belligerent right, and neutral States submit to it and to its enforce- ment by the capture and condemnation of any blockade-running vessel and her cargo. Difficulties arise when a belligerent asserts a blockade which is not a real blockade, and thus by a side wind endeavours to effect that which he is not by the laws of war entitled to effect, a general prohibition of trade between neutrals and his * There are consequential matters regarding the right of visit and search and as to the disputed question of protection by convoy with which it is not proposed to overload this essay. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 121 enemy. For 'there is no more unquestionable proposition of International Law than the proposi- tion that Neutral States are entitled to carry on upon their own account a trade with a belligerent.'^ To proclaim therefore in a general way the blockade of a port or coast which is not invested, for the chance of catching from time to time one neutral vessel among many and condemning her for breaking the blockade, while scores of ships, perhaps belonging to other neutral States, have passed securely, is an unwarrantable act. Pushed to its extreme, it comes to declaring all the coasts of the enemy blockaded and thus prohibiting all neutral trade. And this was what was done by Napoleon with his Decrees of Berlin and Milan, and in retaliation by the British Orders in Council, both sides acting without warrant. To provide against these illegitimate extensions, it has been common since the days of the First Armed Neutrahty (1780) " to denounce ' paper blockades ' and to stipulate that blockades shall be ' effective.' The right of a beUigerent to interfere with the trade of a neutral when it consists in carrying munitions of war to the enemy is also of ancient date and well established. Though a Neutral State since the Treaty of Washington, 1871, may be held to act unneutrally if she permits an armed body of men, or a ship of war to be * Phillimore, International Law, vol. iii. sec. 161. » Koch has a good passage on these subjects, vol. i. p. 463. 122 Treaties concerning the Laws of War despatched or fitted out from her ports, her subjects have always been allowed to export munitions, subject to the penalty that if they are caught on the way they are deemed contraband and are confiscated. Here the difficulty which arises is as to the articles to be deemed contraband. Arms and ammunition will obviously be contraband ; but many raw materials capable of being worked up either into warlike weapons or into peacefxil engines of commerce, many manufactured articles available for purposes of war or of peace, articles ancipitis usus in the language of international lawyers, will give rise to dispute. Then there are also the cases of ' conditional contraband.' And cir- cumstances are continually changing. Fifty years ago mineral oil, rubber, and chemicals would never have been dreamt of as being used in war. In consequence, there have been numerous treaties between States agreeing as between themselves, from time to time, what shall be deemed contraband.^ As to Capture of Private Property of Belligerent Nationals at sea, this also is an unquestioned belligerent right, though suggestions have been made for its abolition. Here the difficulty with neutrals arises when the ship and her cargo being, as they usually are, differently owned, one owner is an enemy and the other a neutral. Are the two to stand and fall together — free * A long list will be found in Phillimore, International Law, vol. iii., part lo, chap. i. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 123 ship, free goods, enemy's ship, enemy's goods ? Or shall there be discrimination, the enemy's ship be captured and the neutral's goods go free, and vice versd ? It can be argued that there is a simphcity and convenience in the arrangement which gives to the whole adventure one national character. If the neutral ship be seized because of carrying an enemy cargo, she is brought out of her course into a belligerent port, divested of her lading, no doubt paid a proportionate freight, but then left to find her way home. If the enemy ship be brought in, no doubt the neutral cargo is released ; but it is released at a strange port, and its owner has to provide as best he can, either to sell it on the spot or forward it to its destination. Many States have adopted the rule free ships, free goods, and vice versd?- On the other hand, there is something arbitrary in the confiscation of the goods of a neutral which he has lawfully laden upon the ship of a nation with which his country is at peace. But there is a deeper underlying consideration. With the doctrine of free ships, free goods, the command of the sea is of much less value. The ' See Phillimore, International Law, vol. iii., part 9, chap, x., for an enumeration of treaties providing for one rule or the other. This provision has been inserted by the United States in, it is behaved, all their treaties with other American States. See Treaties and Conventions concluded between the United States of America and other Powers since July 4, 1776, published at Washington, 1889. The writer is indebted to the courtesy of the American Embassy in London for the opportunity of reading this book. 124 Treaties concerning the Laws of War belligerent who has lost his merchant navy can yet provision himself and carry on his trade in neutral bottoms. Great Britain therefore steadily held to the division of the adventure until the Crimean War. And this brings us to the Declaration of Paris. Great Britain and France were in alliance. France was guided by the other rule. She confiscated neutral cargo on enemy's ships but allowed the neutral flag to cover everything but contraband.^ In order that the Allies might work more nearly on the same system, Great Britain waived her right of seizing enemy's property laden on board a neutral vessel unless it were contraband. She did not, however, claim to exercise the right which France claimed. She thus made an un- qualified concession to neutrals. She also gave up the ancient practice of issuing letters of marque to privateers. After the war, the Plenipotentiaries of the Seven Powers agreed to a Declaration in four articles : I. Privateering is and remains abolished. To this useful provision most States have formally acceded. No State has since issued letters of marque ; and the learning about privateers is happily matter of ancient history. 4. Blockades in order to be binding must be effective ; 1 But in the Treaty of Commerce of 1786 between Great Britain and France it was provided (Art. 29) that the flag should not cover the cargo. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 125 that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the enemy's coastline. This article also has been generally accepted, not so much as new legislation, but as stating a principle of International Law which had at last got itself established. It has not been questioned during this War and is not likely to be disputed in future. Arts. 2 and 3 are the controversial ones : 2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods with the ex- ception of contraband of war. 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag. By Art. 2, Great Britain abandoned her ancient claim. By Art. 3, France and other nations abandoned theirs. The unwisdom of the abandonment by Great Britain of her ancient rights was much commented on at the time.^ It has been demonstrated during the present War. Art. 3 is, as it happens, of no importance in this War, the German mercantile navy having been destroyed or shut up in harbour. There has as yet been no formal abrogation or denunciation of Art. 2, though in a Declara- tion of March i, 1915, put out by the British and French Governments by way of reprisal for the German Declaration of a submarine blockade, the two Governments stated that they would 'hold themselves free to detain and take into port ships carrjdng goods of presumed enemy * E.g., by Sir Robert Phillimore, International Law, vol. iii. sec. 210, and John Stuart Mill, there cited. 126 Treaties concerning the Laws of War destination, ownership, or origin. It is not, they went on to say, * intended to confiscate such vessels or cargoes unless they would otherwise be liable to condemnation.' Many attempts have been made before this War to induce States to abandon the right to capture the enemy's private property at sea ; but they have not succeeded, and after the ex- perience of the present War, it may be safely said that no such proposition woiold now be entertained. The idea is one which has in times past commended itself to some philanthropists and to somewhat sentimental politicians ; but its real supporters were the statesmen of the great con- tinental nations vnth large standing armies and a whole population of trained men, who wished to make aU wars soldiers' wars, in which they would be certain (as they thought) of success.^ The writer will suggest in Chapter IX. that the Declaration of Paris be abrogated and that, if possible, the ancient rule of the prize law of Great Britain be made of universal application* ' The writer is glad to think that when the subject came up for discussion at the Conference of the International Law Associa- tion at Rouen in 1900, he and his friend, the late Lord Justice Kennedy, resolutely and successfully opposed a proposition in favour of the abolition of the right to capture private property at sea. It has been said that it is unequal to expose private property at sea to capture when private property on land is not con- fiscated. But since the experience of private owners in France and Belgium at the hands of the Germans in this War, we are not likely to hear this argument again. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 127 But he fears that, so far from this being universally- accepted, there is likely to be an attack made on the principle of capture of private property at sea, an attack which the statesmen of Great Britain and France must be prepared to meet. He has another motive for the introduction of this topic of prize law, which might appear as a digression from the main purposes of the essay, and that is the following : Germany and Austria-Hungary have, in the assertion of their belligerent rights in maritime warfare, invaded the rights of neutrals, and committed acts of inhumanity for which there is no toleration and which must be made impossible. There is no Convention of The Hague of 1907 which deals directly with Blockade, Contraband, or the Capture of Private Property at Sea.^ But No. 12, relative to the establishment of an International Prize Court, does incidentally introduce these matters. By Art. 7, the proposed Court was, in the absence of treaty provisions, to apply the rules of International Law ; and Great Britain thereupon proposed a Conference with the object of reaching an agreement as to the rules of International Law which this Court would apply.^ The Conference met and prepared what is known as the Declaration of London of 1909. 1 No. 13 is entitled ' Convention respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Maritime War ' ; but it deals with such questions as the admission of belligerent vessels and their prizes into the ports of a Neutral State. » Pearce Higgins, p. 567. 128 Treaties concerning the Laws of War It was never ratified. It contained some most questionable provisions in alteration of the recognised rules of International Law. The general object was to favour neutrals and reduce the powers of belligerents. But by an irony of fate its effect, so far as it has gone, has been disastrous to neutrals during the present War. During the Russo-Japanese War, the Russians had sunk some English ships at sea, alleging that no harm was done as they were certain to be condemned for carrying contraband if brought into Court, and that it was dangerous or im- possible to bring them into port. There was no breach of the laws of humanity. The Russians took off and took care of the crews. But Great Britain strongly protested at the time ; and before The Hague Conference of 1907, Sir Edward Grey, as Foreign Secretary, instructed the British Delegates as follows : As regards the sinking of neutral prizes, which gave rise to so much feeling in this country during the Russo- Japanese war. Great Britain has always maintained that the right to destroy is confined to enemy vessels only, and" this view is favoured by other Powers. Concerning the right to destroy captured neutral vessels, the view hitherto taken by the greater Naval Powers has been that, in the event of it being impossible to bring in a vessel for adjudica- tion, she must be released. You should urge the maintenance of the doctrine upon this subject which British prize courts have, for at least 200 years, held to be the law.^ When this matter, having been postponed * The Hague Peace Conference, Pearce Higgins, p. 624. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 129 from The Hague Conference, came up before the Conference of London, the lame and impotent conclusion was expressed in the following articles : Destruction of Neutral Prizes. Art. 48. A neutral vessel which has been captured may not be destroyed by the captor ; she must be taken into such port as is proper for the determination there of all questions concerning the validity of the capture. Art. 49. As an exception, a neutral vessel which has been captured by a belligerent warship, and which would be liable to condemnation, may be destroyed if the observance of Art. 48 would involve danger to the safety of the warship or to the success of the operations in which she is engaged at the time. Art. 50. Before the vessel is destroyed all persons on board must be placed in safety, and all the ship's papers and other documents which the parties interested consider relevant for the purpose of deciding on the validity of the capture, must be taken on board the warship. Art. 51. A captor who has destroyed a neutral vessel must, prior to any decision respecting the validity of the prize, establish that he only acted in the face of an exceptional necessity of the nature contemplated in Art. 49. If he fails to do this, he must compensate the parties interested and no examination shall be made of the question whether the capture was valid or not. Art. 52. If the capture of a neutral vessel is subse- quently held to be invalid, though the act of destruction has been held to have been justifiable, the captor must pay compensation to the parties interested, in place of the restitution to which they would have been entitled. Articles 53 and 54 deal with the destruction of neutral goods. After the clear statement of principle by the British Foreign Secretary these articles in the 130 Treaties concerning the Laws of War Declaration of London were an act of weakness, and this war has shown the mischief of them. No door ought to be open for such outrages upon neutrals, and upon non-combatant subjects of a belligerent State when travelling on neutral vessels, as the construction put upon these articles by Germany and Austria-Hungary has enabled them to commit. If any neutral vessel cannot be brought into port for adjudication, she should be released. The owner of neutral cargo on board an enemy ship ought equally to have a right to insist that the ship be brought into port, and that his case be tried with all the advantages which the posses- sion of the ship's papers and knowledge of the other incidents of the voyage and the testimony of the master and crew may give him. Still more has the neutral passenger who is entitled to travel on a belligerent merchant ship, the right to say that though he must submit to the inconveniences of the ship being brought in for condemnation, he had entered upon a lawful voyage and is entitled to be brought in the ship in to a safe port, being put to sufficient inconvenience by having had his voyage diverted and having to make his further way as best he can from the port of condemnation. No doubt the prohibition of the practice of sinking vessels would put a stop to the German form of submarine warfare, and to some warfare by corsairs who can never hope to bring their prizes into port. But it would be much to the Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 131 advantage of humanity if the old rule were restored and adhered to. The old doctrine as to captures at sea has been thought in times past to press hardly enough upon neutrals ; this Russo-Germam extension makes the position of neutrals almost more intolerable than that of belligerents. CHAPTER VIII HOW TREATIES ARE BROUGHT TO AN END The academical question whether Peace revives old treaties which had been dissolved by war is prudently disposed of in modern times by ex- press provision one way or the other in the Treaty of Peace .^ Sometimes treaties have been made for a fixed term of years. The Treaty of Kiwerowa Hoska, 1582, between Poland and Russia was to last ten years, and was continued in 1591 for eleven years more. The Treaty of Adrianople, 1713, between Russia and Turkey, was made for twenty-five years ; and the Treaty of Passarowitz between the Emperor and Turkey was to last twenty-four lunar years. An important Treaty of 1846, between the United States and New Granada concerning the Isthmus of Panama was to last twenty years. The treaty between the United States and Prussia of 1799, which has been already referred to, expired in 1810. It has not been unusual for Treaties of Com- merce to have a time limit, or to have a provision ^ Or by a subsequent treaty, as that of 1902 between the United States of America and Spain. 132 Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 133 that either State has the right after a time to bring it to an end, upon notice. The exercise of this right of notice is called in diplomatic language a 'denunciation.' Some treaties have for their sole purview future and conditional events, and only operate if and when the events happen. In a sense this is true of all treaties of defensive alliance ; but there are special cases in which it is emphasised, as, for instance, when provision is made for assistance to the Ally if attacked by a particular Power, or in a particular portion of his territory. The special Convention between Great Britain and Turkey at the time of the Treaty of Berlin in 1878, for the protection of the Asiatic pro- vinces of Turkey against Russia, is a good instance.^ In these cases the question frequently arises whether the event is precisely within the terms of the provision; and it is imfortunately true that States, when it has been inconvenient for them to come to the assistance of their AUies, have narrowly and closely examined their stipula- tions in order to see whether they must admit that what is called in diplomatic language the casus foederis, has arisen ; and few things are more difficult of appreciation than the justice or in- justice of the refusal by a State to admit the casus fcederis. An interesting example occurred when Great • Vide supra, p. 89. 134 -^"^ Treaties are Brought to an End Britain, rel5dng on the Treaty of Westminster of 1678, called upon the States General to assist her in her war with her American Colonies, France, and Spain, in 1783. The refusal of the States General to recognise this claim ended in war being declared between the two countries in the same year. The present War has furnished two examples. At the outset Italy refused to consider that in the circumstances in which the war began she was bound by her Treaty of Triple Alliance to side with Germany and Austria-Hungary. And Greece declined to come to the assistance of Serbia when the latter State was attacked, not only by Bulgaria, in respect of which there was unquestionably a casus foederis, but also by Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Turkey in alliance with Bulgaria. Whether or not the Ally be justified in refusing to recognise the casus foederis, he in his turn must expect that the disappointed State will consider the treaty as at an end. As to treaties generally, it is one of the diffi- culties incident to continuing stipulations, that in time one of the parties may grow weary and find the yoke too irksome to be borne, especially as the conditions of the world alter. It must be admitted that there are cases where the claim of a State to abrogate a treaty cannot reasonably be refused. That is, if she does so after giving ample notice beforehand, not retracting in the middle of an emergency or crisis, but giving such Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 135 opportunity to the other State as may enable it to adapt itself to the altered condition. But the broad principle is pactum serva. No State, however, can by unilateral action release itself from its obligations. This point arose between the United States of America and France in 1798, when the United States claimed by Declaration to annul certain Conventions with France, and France insisted that the Conventions could not be thus brought to an end. When the two nations, after an interval of disturbance, concluded a fresh Treaty of Peace and Commerce on September 30, 1800, to last eight years, this particular difficulty was still tmdisposed of, and had to be left open, Art. 2 of the treaty being in the following terms : Les ministres pMnipotentiaires des deux parties ne pouvant, pour le present, s'accorder au traite d'alliance de 6 f^vrier, 1778, au traite d'amiti^ et de commerce de la meme date, et k la convention de 14 novembre, 1788, non plus que relativement aux indemnity mutueUement dues ou reclam^es, les parties ndgocieront ulterieurement sur ces objets, dans un temps convenable ; et jusqu'a ce qu'elles se soient ac- cord^es sur ces points, lesdits traitds et conventions n'auront point d'effet, et les relations des deux nations seront rdglees ainsi qu'il suit. On this Koch observes : Pour I'inteUigence de cet article il faut se rappeler que les conventions qui y sont relatees avaient eti annulees par I'acte des fitats Unis du 7 juillet, 1798 ; mais le gouveme- ment frangais refusa avec raison de reconnaitre cet acte, parcequ'il ne depend pas d'une partie de se degager par une simple declaration de sa volenti d'une obligation S5mallaga- matique. II est de principe en droit des gens qu'im traite 136 How Treaties are Brought to an End entre deux puissances ne peut etre rompu que par une declara- tion de guerre. Cette declaration de guerre n'avait pas eu lieu. . . . ' ^ Russia in 1871, as has been already stated,^ had claimed to release herself from clauses of the Treaty of Paris of 1856 without the consent of the other contracting parties. But at the assembling of the Conference in London, Earl Granville made the following statement : The Conference has been accepted by all the consignatory Powers of the Treaty of 1856, for the purpose of examining without any foregone conclusion, and of discussing with perfect freedom, the proposals which Russia desires to make to us with regard to the revision which she asks of the stipula- tions of the said Treaty relative to the neutralisation of the Black Sea. This unanimity furnishes a striking proof that the Powers recognise that it is an essential principle of the law of nations that none of them can liberate itself from the engagements of a Treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting parties by means of an amicable understanding. This important principle appears to me to meet with general acceptance, and I have the honour to propose to you, gentlemen, to sign a Protocol ai hoc. The Protocol in question was then submitted to the Conference and signed by all the Pleni- potentiaries. Art. 59 of the Treaty of Berhn of 1878 appeared to provide that Batoum should be a free port. But in 1886, Russia announced that she considered this Article to be not like the other Articles, a product of general agreement, but a ' Vol. ii. p. 57. 2 Yj^^g supra, p. 84. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 137 spontaneous declaration of the Tsar, that the reasons for making Batoum a free port no longer existed, that its position as such was prejudicial to the well-being of the Province, and that Russia was going to terminate this position. The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Rosebery, protested, in a despatch of July 3, against this action, but notwithstanding the protest, the Tsar, by a ukase of July 5, took away from Batoum the position of a free port. Those who desire to free themselves from the obligations of a treaty sometimes avail themselves of a maxim of the Civil Law : Conventio omnis intelligitur rebus sic stantibus, which, according to the exposition of Sir Robert Phillimore, means ' when that state of things which was essential to, and the common cause of, the promise or en- gagement has undergone a material change, or has ceased, the foundation of the promise or engage- ment is gone, and their obligation has ceased.' As he further says : ' This provision rests upon the principle that the condition of rebus sic stantibus is tacitly annexed to every cove- nant.'^ Grotius and Vattel have devoted at- tention to the maxim. It is not to be applied without great caution. Grotius admits it only in cases in which it is quite clear that the existing state of things was the sole cause of the contract.* 1 Commentaries on International Law, vol. ii. sees. 89, 90. • De jure belli et pacts, Lib. II., c. xvi., p. 25, Wheaton says : Treaties expire by their own limitation, unless revived by express agreement, or when their stipulations are fulfilled 138 How Treaties are Brought to an End To this limitation another condition should be annexed. The State which is about to suggest that the treaty is no longer binding should give ample notice before acting, so that other States may adapt themselves to the altered condition of things. To use diplomatic language, there must be a prior denunciation of the treaty. To act as if an existing treaty were non-existent, to abrogate it without warning, is to put the other party, who may have been relpng upon it, in a worse condition than if there had been no treaty at all. The injured one has been lulled into a false security. When the crisis comes it is too late to withdraw from the contract. But if ample notice be given beforehand, then it seems to the writer that there is a good deal to be said for the contention that the rulers of one generation cannot bind the nationals of a State in perpetuity ; that with the vast changes produced by the industrial and commercial growth of the world, by new inventions and the occupation or civilisa- tion of waste or thinly populated territories, it by the respective parties or when a total change of circumstances renders them no longer obligatory. {Elements of International Law, by Henry Wheaton, LL.D., sec. cclxxv. p. 390.) Kliiber says : Les Trait^s cessent encore d'Stre obligatoires, 7' lors du changement essential de telle on telle circonstance, dont I'existence dtait supposee ndcessaire par les deux parties clausula rebus sic stantibus, soit que cette condition a 6t6 stipul6 express6- ment soit qu'elle resulte de la nature mSme du Trait6. (Droit des Gens Moderne de V Europe, par J. L. Kluber, 2nd ed. Paris, 1874.) Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 139 may well be that ancient stipulations have become unreasonable ; and that a State has a right to invite the other to enter into negotiations for the purpose of modifying or cancelling old relations. Bluntschli says : Art. 454. Le trait6 ne prend fin, par suite de la denunciation d'une seule des parties contractantes, que si cela a €t€ express^ment reserve, ou si le droit de denoncer une trait6 rdsulte des circonstances. And in a note, he adds : La nature du droit public exige I'admission du droit de d6noncer un trait6 dans certain cas, meme lorsque ce droit n'a pas ^t^ reserve. Le bien des peuples pent etre compromis par un traits, et une gdn^ration ne pent pas lier k perp6tuit6 les generations subsequentes, etc. * Calvo thus expresses himself both as to the power to denounce and as to the necessity of notice. Lorsque les circonstances se sont modifiees et que les parties cessent d'etre d'accord, celui des contractants dont les interets sont en souffrance ou qui veut definitivement rompre ses liens conventioimels est tenu de notifier k I'autre, par ecrit ou verbalement, mais d'une mantle expresse, son intention de laisser expirer le traite. Cette notification prend le nom de denonciation. Lorsqu'elle repose sur des raisons s^rieuses de convenance la denonciation se justifie d'elle-meme et ne saurait etre consider^e comme un precede blessant ou injurieiix pour la partie qui la refoit. If, however, a State claim to use a treaty as if it were no treaty, but a mere ' scrap of paper ' or * Le Droit International CodifiS, p. 267. ' Le Droit International, vol. i. p. 678. 140 How Treaties are Brought to an End ' rotten parchment bond/ to break it without notice, or to act in defiance of it without even the ceremony of a notified breach, with that State unrepentant no treaties can be made, for no promises are of any avail. The only thing is for her neighbours to keep ceaseless watch and ward on their frontiers as against a barbarous tribe, and upon any outbreak to inflict such a chastise- ment as will at once enforce a lesson upon her and break her power to do mischief. CHAPTER IX CONCLUSIONS This chapter is written on the assumption that Great Britain and her Allies will be victorious in the present War, not perhaps with so preponder- ating a success as that of France over Prussia which led to the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807, or of the Allies over France in 1814, but still sufficient to enable the Allies to enforce moderate and reasonable demands. It is written on the further assumption that the statesmen and diplomatists of both sides will strive for a Peace which is not an armistice nor a truce, but one as lasting as human foresight can secure. The War is remarkable not only as being on the largest scale, but as involving the largest number of powerful nations and the most con- flicting interests which the world has known. The matters to be determined, if not so numerous as those determined at the Congress of Vienna with its consequential treaties, wiU in combined number and magnitude exceed those of that or any other treaty. First will have to be considered the settle- ment of claims and disputes, and, secondly, pro- 141 142 Conclusions visions for preventing, wherever possible, war in future, and for making war, when it does occur, less intolerable than the present War has been. So various are the interests that the settle- ment of claims and disputes must be considered State by State and nationality by nationality. Upon these subjects it is proposed to make sug- gestions seriatim. The other half of the business of the treaty — prevention of war and improvement of the laws of war, if war there must be, will follow after the territorial and national rearrangements. But if these rearrangements are to be made with an eye to the future, it is well to consider how to eliminate provisions which would probably be useless. This War has taught us that neutralisation of States is no good. Belgium and Luxemburg have been invaded. The Congo State has been involved in warfare. Though Greece is not at formal war, one of the Ionian Islands has been occupied by the Allies, and if Greece were in actual collision no one can suppose that the other islands woiild be treated as neutral. Switzerland, it is true, has escaped, but who can say whether, if the plans of the German Staff had pointed in that direction, Switzerland might not have met with the fate of Belgium ? And with Switzerland would fall the neutralised portion, of Savoy. BuEer States have sometimes commended themsleves to politicians. There has been an Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 143 idea that Alsace-Lorraine could be turned into a Buffer State, or could be put into a similar position with Switzerland, and made neutral, so that there would be a chain of Bui^er States — Belgium, Luxemburg, Alsace-Lorraine, and Switzerland — between France and Germany. But who can doubt that if these two great nations were at war, they would find the means of striking at each other by land ? And the experiences of Saxony at the hands of Frederick IL are not encouraging. The Barrier Treaties may have been helpful to Holland ; but they were injurious to the Austrian Netherlands. Something, it seems to the writer, is to be hoped from the restoration of the Balance of Power, a principle to which reference has already been made in the first and second chapters, and which has been in the minds of European statesmen since the Peace of Westphalia, 1648. The preponderance of military power which the two great Central Empires, by reason of their position, the size of their populations, and their military training and preparation, possessed, should be, and will be, reduced. In this respect, the entry of the United States of America, with the lead thus given to the other American States, is invaluable. Canning's phrase is found to be prophetic. The New World has been called in ' to redress the Balance of the Old.' Some may say that the result of this war will be to give to Great Britain a preponderance and weigh down the balance in her favour to 144 Conclusions such an extent as to make her a greater danger to the peace of the world than even the combined Central Empires. An Englishman may hope, as he wUl certainly pray, that she may make a just use of her strength. But the temptation which power places in the mind of mortal man, and still more so in the collective mind of aggre- gations of men, is too well known. The only thing to lay to our heart is the exhortation — ' Be not highminded, but fear.' Nevertheless, Great Britain's preponderance — if it results — will be of a different nature from the preponderance of the compact Central Empires. Her possessions are so scattered and, being scattered, so vulnerable from all sides, and the interests of the Dominions are so diverse, that for the purposes of offence she is, though for a different reason, as unwieldy as Russia. She has become a Confederation ; and Confederations, as has been said, seldom fight. Before proceeding to the question of territorial and national rearrangement, we should make use of the history and historical lessons to be learnt from the previous chapters. Inconclusive Treaties of Peace are of little value— witness Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, the Peace of Amiens in 1802. A Peace which leaves a real claim or an earnest national aspiration unsatisfied is only a truce. The arrangements of the Congress of Vienna as to Italy and Poland; the arrange- ments of 1829, 1830, and 1832, creating the Independence of Greece but drawing the line in Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 145 a wholly arbitrary manner, and giving no real recognition to Greek claims ; the rearrangement of Italy which left out Venetia ; the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 ; were just as calculated to bring on war as were the Treaty of Tilsit of 1807, or the Treaty of Frankfort of 1871. It is almost a truism that the annexation of an unwilling nationality, whether as subject to, or in forcible union with, another nationality, gains no strength from its being ratified by a treaty. The annexing nation may succeed in blending the two together But if there be no union of hearts rupture wiU come at any time, soon as it did for Belgium, later for Lombardy and Venetia, later still for Norway. Or there may be constant unrest, as with tlie T5n:ol when put under Bavaria, with North Schleswig, with Poland, and with portions, at any rate, of Alsace-Lorraine. Japan has still to win over Corea, and the United States the Philippine Islands.^ Cessions and retrocessions should be, if possible, absolute, not encumbered with con- ditions or stipulations as to the future. Pro- tectorates may be necessary for the Turkish territories or in Africa. Otherwise they are to be avoided. Guarantees are idle things. Generally, the security for future Peace does not * If there has to be any annexation, there is a useful clause in the Treaty of Cession of Alaska (1867) by Russia to the United States (Art. 3), which provides that the inhabitants, except uncivilised tribes, shall be made citizens of the United States, and enjoy their liberty and property and the free exercise of their religion. L 146 Conclusions lie in promises or stipulations, but in the establish- ment of a just and stable order. The questions of territorial and national settle- ment will fall into fifteen main divisions : I. The ' restoration of Belgium, Serbia, and Montenegro with the compensations due to them.' ^ One form of compensation in each of these cases must be money to enable the peoples of these three States to repair the ravages of the enemy. The amount of indemnity, for which the four allied enemies (or perhaps Turkey should be excepted) have made themselves by their actions liable, is so inconceivably large that payment in full cannot be expected ; but in the bankruptcy of our enemies, Belgium, Serbia, and Montenegro should be treated as preferential creditors, and should get something approaching to an adequate sum, not that any money can repair the wrongs done to them. As to the compensation which takes the form of territorial advantage, it will be best to consider the cases of Serbia and Montenegro when the subject of the future condition of the Slavonic countries in Austria-Hungary comes to be dealt with. Much as Bulgaria owes to them, on account of her aggressions, it will not, it is appre- hended, be right to take territory from Bulgaria to add to Serbia ; because at the end of the War of 1913, when Bulgaria was so completely beaten, 1 Reply of the Allied Governments to President Wilson, January 10, 1917. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 147 the lines were so drawn as to incorporate all Serb populations with Serbia and leave only Bulgars to Bulgaria. As to Belgium, military experts may recom- mend some alteration of frontier for the purpose of improving her defensive power ; but otherwise it does not seem that there is any natural accretion to be made to her territory, except possibly such an annexation of the strip of Zeeland as would give Belgium one bank of the West Scheldt to the sea, or some other arrangement which would give Belgium equal rights with Holland over the West Scheldt both in war and peace .^ This would carry with it the obligation to make to Holland, or procure for Holland, some compensation. There is also a possible union with Luxemburg ; and this leads to the next matter to be considered in the treaty. 2. Luxemburg is entitled to her freedom from the German invader. What should be her future destiny ? Would her people prefer to remain as in times past the most vulnerable of the small States of Europe ? Or would they desire to join Germany or France ? Or would they prefer, as seems more natural, to be united to Belgium ? It should be remembered that this nearly happened at the time of the formation of Belgium, that it was over Luxemburg that the war with Holland was prolonged and that the compromise which gave half to Belgium, and left half to the ' Vide supra, p. 20 and p. 52. 148 Conclusions King of the Netherlands as Grand Duke, was a mere concession to dynastic claims. 3. As to Roumania, France, and Russia, there must be, to start with, a restoration to the status quo ante helium?- The territories occupied by the Austrians and Germans must be evacuated by them forthwith, if they have not already been driven out. 4. Japan's first contribution to the War has been her ejection, with the co-operation of Great Britain, of the Germans from China. It is to be supposed that the Germans wiU not be restored to the territory from which they have been ejected, or permitted any military occupation of any part of China whether under a lease or otherwise. Probably Japan will join with Australia and New Zealand in the desire that no foothold is left to Germany in the Pacific. 5. Portugal has her boundary questions to settle in East Africa. 6. France will desire to have her lost departments.^ Here, it seems to the writer that some care will have to be taken to consult the feelings of the inhabitants of Alsace and of those of Lorraine. It may be, one cannot yet tell, that there are * The evacuation of the invaded territories in France, in Russia, in Roumaiiiia, with just reparation. (Reply to President Wilson.) » The restitution of provinces formerly torn from the Allies by force against the wish of their inhabitants. (Reply to President Wilson.) Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 149 districts in which the inhabitants have become German in sentiment, and their young men, having fought on the side of Germany, feel that she is their nation. If this be so, one would regret it. One would desire France to have back all that was taken from her and that she has so patiently striven to recover. But it would be unjust and it would be dangerous to transfer populations against their will. The unhealed sore of 1871 would be replaced by the unhealable sore of 1917 or 1918. When the line comes to be drawn there is a consideration not to be neglected. The boundary, whether it throws a few villages, whose inhabitants could be removed or compensated, to one side or the other, ought to be drawn so as to give a strategically strong defence, to both sides if possible, anyhow, to France. The writer has already referred to Sir Thomas Holdich's work on Political Frontiers and Boundary-making. France would seem to have the next claim to the benefit of the pecuniary indemnities to be paid. Indeed, in her case the Germans seem to be industriously increasing day by day the damages which they ought ultimately to discharge. 7 and 8. ' The liberation of the Italians as also of the . . . Roumanians from foreign domination ' is also one of the aims of the AUies.^ The cases of Italy and Roumania are closely > Reply to President Wilson. 150 Conclusions alike, except that Italy has had no serious occupa- tion of her territories and might therefore take her sole compensation in the form of ' the redress of the grievances ' (to use Professor Bernard's words) for which she went to war ; while Roumania would naturally expect a share in the pecuniary indemnity in addition to the redress of her grievances. Both States went to war because there were people of their nation and tongue outside their limits, suffering under an alien yoke, desiring and desired to be united with them. In both cases the difficulty will lie in drawing the line of demarcation. Italy may prefer a fair claim to the Trentino, a territory originally subject to a Prince Bishop, forming part, it is true, of the Austrian Circle in the German lands of the^Empire, but chosen because it was in Italy and not in Germany, as the seat of the famous Council^ and in- habited, as it is believed, by an Italian and Italian-speaking people. But towards Gorz, Carniola, and Istria, while some territory is certainly Italian and the people in it would desire (which is the important thing) to form part of the Kingdom of Italy, it is, except for an ^ Sarpi, Istoria del Concilia Tridentino , Mendrisio, 1835. Lib. I., cap. Ixviii. The Bishop of Trent was under the Patriarch of Aquileia, and in this ItaUan province and not in the Austrian province of Salzburg. (Spriiner, Historisch Atlas DeuUchland, No. 13 ; Itahen, No. 6.) But its Bishop signed the Recess of Augsburg, 1555 ; and the bishopric appears on the Matricula of the Empire (Schmauss, Corpus Juris Publici S.R. Imperii, ed> 1774, pp. 89, 205, 1028, 1332, 1420). Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 151 expert, difficult to say where the Italian should end and where the Slav should begin. If indeed the choice is between an Austro- Hungarian dominance or Italian freedom, no humane person would hesitate. But if there were to be a South Slavonic Confederacy, there would be a debatable land of some extent, through which it will be difficult to draw the line of demarcation with fairness to both nationalities. The claim of Roumania to the Roumanian and Roumanian-speaking portion of Transylvania and Bukovina is equally good up to a point and equally hard to delimit. In both cases, that of Italy and that of Roumania, a good defensive frontier is one of the objects to be attained. Italy has felt this need on the side of the Isonzo during the present War. g. Russia wiU (as the AUies have intimated) demand evacuation of her invaded territories with compensation. Poland and the territory claimed by Roumania, separate Russia from Germany and Austria- Hungary, Her territorial compensation, therefore, if she is to have territorial compensation, and it may be that she does not now desire any, wiU come out of the Turkish dominions ; and the case of Turkey will be handled later. 10. Great Britain will have made in propor- tion to her population as large a sacrifice of life as any of the Allies. Of her wealth she wiU have given out of proportion, and so vastly 152 Conclusions that Germany and her Allies could never make it good. At the outset of the war she had ' no grievance to redress.' She took up arms to stop aggression. In the general settlement her main compensa- tion will lie in the assurance of future peace. But her Colonies and India will have to be con- sidered. In Europe she seems to have only two needs — one is quite a small one. If she keeps Cyprus she will no longer pay tribute for it, either to the Porte or to any other ruler of Constantinople. The other matter is Heligoland, which she took from the Danes during the Napoleonic Wars, kept at the Congress of Vienna, and trans- ferred to Germany as a make-weight in the arrangements as to East Africa in 1890. So dan- gerous a sea fortress cannot be left in Germany's keeping. But it would be too much to expect that we should keep it at the doors of Hamburg. Moreover, it would always afford a temptation to a coup de main. The writer would suggest that it be dismantled, restored to its pristine conditions of a bathing-place and rabbit-warren, and thus handed over to its original possessor, Denmark. As a fortress it would be a damnosa hereditas, for it would, as has been said, tempt a coup de main. But if it were an open island and Germany seized it, she could be forced to restore it before she could fortify it. If Denmark, as a reward for accepting this Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 153 deposit, were to receive the accession of the Danish- speaking portion of Schleswig, as was proposed at the Treaty of Prague, justice would be done to a nationahty whose deputies have never ceased to protest in the Reichstag against the an- nexation, and it would be a step towards ' the reorganization of Europe . . . based on respect for nationalities.'^ II. The future of the German Colonies will probably form one of the most difficult subjects of negotiation. The Colonies in the Pacific have been captured by Australia and New Zealand. They are their peculiar prizes, and history teaches us how sus- ceptible is a colony if the Mother Country gives up what the colony has won. Our North American colonists are said never to have forgiven Great Britain for the surrender of Cape Breton at the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, after they had been at such pains to take the great fortress of Louisburg ; and it has been surmised that the ill-feeling then engendered was a cause of the War of Independence. Japan also, as has been already observed, will probably not desire German stations in the Pacific. So to the German colonies in the Pacific the rule uti possidetis is likely to be applied. They will remain in the hands of their conquerors, who, it is to be trusted, will administer them at 1 Reply to President Wilson. 154 Conclusions least as well and as satisfactorily to the natives as their former German masters. The same considerations will prevent the retrocession of South-West Africa. There are in addition the strongest motives of humanity. For it was here that the Germans in power gave such proofs of their cruelty to the natives in time of peace, and of their ferocity and un- scrupulousness to the natives and to the Cape troops during the war. As to East Africa, the Cape people seem to make the same demand. From this part of the world, as also from West Africa, there comes a consensus of opinion (at least as it reaches British ears) of all those who have to do with the natives, that the Germans are bad and cruel adminis- trators and likely, if they were allowed to re- turn, to take terrible vengeance upon those of the native population who have adhered to the British or French. If any colony or part of a colony, whether in East Africa, the Cameroons, or Togoland, is to be restored to them, special provisions of a temporary character must be taken to protect the natives. It will not be enough to have the usual Clause, referred to by Lord Palmerston in 1856, that ' When a year is terminated in the course of which the armies of one country have occupied the territory of another, it is the invariable practice that there shall be an agreement between the parties to insure a complete amnesty to all subjects of either Power, who may have been at all com- Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 155 initted in the progress of hostilities.' ^ There must be some further protection for the natives. The administration might be kept for a while in British or French hands. The province might be in depot for some years. But it may be that the Allies wUl not trust Germany with any power over subject races. In that case France and Great Britain would divide her colonies, except so far as the claims of Portugal come in.2 12. Poland. The late Tsar intimated his intention to restore the Kingdom of Poland with an independent administration ; and the Russian Provisional Government, on March 30, 1917, stated that the Russian nation ' recognises also the absolute right of the brother nation of Poland to decide its own lot by the exercise of its own will,' and ' regards the creation of an independent Polish State formed of all the territories of which the majority of the population is Polish, as a pledge of a durable peace in the remodelled Europe of the future.' The Allies are reported as having accepted and endorsed this statement in a- docu- ment put forth at Paris on April 15, 1917. It win be observed that Polish does not include Lithuanian or Ruthene. Whether the effect of this declaration would be to extend Poland, so far as Russia is concerned, beyond the Kingdom of Poland established by the Congress of Vienna does not appear. Probably it would not. ' Quoted in Phillimore's International Law, vol. iii. sec. 511, note. Vide supra, p. 8 ; Chapter VI., p. 105. » Vide supra, p. i/^8. 156 Conclusions But the manifesto points to a Poland made up also of Prussian and Austrian Polish Provinces. West Prussia — an ancient part of Poland, but said to be German-speaking, a province necessary to the continuity of Prussia and assigned to Prussia at the First Partition of 1772 — could not with reason be taken from Germany. But all principles of nationality would require that the Polish-speaking Provinces, whose deputies have constantly protested in the Reichstag against their absorption, should be allowed the oppor- tunity of forming part of the new Poland. As to Austrian Poland, about half is Ruthenian or Ukrainian, and may prefer to remain with Austria, if it is not joined to the other Ruthenes in Russia. Cracow and the western half is Polish ; but the Poles in Austria have lately fared well ; and few could tell beforehand which connection the people of this part of Galicia would prefer. 13. As to the Slavonic and Roumanian lands in Austria-Hungary. The reply of the Allies to President Wilson speaks of ' the liberation . . . of the Slavs, Roumanians, and Czecho-Slovakg from foreign domination.' The carelessness of expression in this sentence has been the subject of comment. The Czecho- slovaks are not distinct from the Slavs. They are Slavs. Perhaps by Slavs was meant the Southern Slavs of Carinthia, Carniola, Croatia, Istria, Dalmatia, and Bosnia Herzegovina. As to the wishes of the Czecho-Slovaks in Bohemia and Moravia we know little. It may be Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 157 that the Censorship has prevented news from reaching us. There have been stories of insurrec- tion in Bohemia and wholesale desertion of Bohemian soldiers ; and a distinguished exile. Professor Masaryk, expresses in The New Europe what he conceives to be the desire of his fellow- countrymen, either for complete independence or, at any rate, legislative autonomy. But we do not know whether his view is largely shared. In the map published with Vol. II., No. 15, of The New Europe the distribution of the two races, Czechs and Slovaks, is drawn by a hand not unfavourable to their race claims. Even so, the map leaves a large part of Bohemia whoUy German ; and the census makes one-third German and two-thirds of the two other races. As to the South Slavonic States, we know what strong measures Austria had to use to subjugate Bosnia Herzegovina, and how frightened Austria- Hungary has been of a Southern Slav Confedera- tion forming rotmd Serbia as a nucleus. The Agram treason trials and her demands upon Serbia after the assassination of the Archduke and Duchess also show this. If the pressure can be removed and we can get at the real feeling of these peoples, it may be that we shall find them demanding a Confederacy of all the Slav nations within the Austro-Hungarian dominions (except Ruthenians and Poles), with Serbia and Montenegro joined, or two Confedera- tions, one in the north and one in the south ; and if so, it woiild be not only right but pohtic to 158 Conclusions support them. Confederations are peace-loving (as has been said) and form an element of stability ;' and within a Confederation there may be quite small as well as larger States. But to interfere merely for the sake of weakening Austria-Hungary would be wrong. 14. Suggestions have been thrown out that in order to destroy the aggressive power of Ger- many her Empire should be forcibly dissolved. The writer would protest with all his might against this. The union of the German nation has been the result of the thought, toil and self- sacrifice of her finest spirits for generations. Its dissolution would be the reverse of that ' respect for nationalities ' of which the Allies speak. It would create a lasting sore, a perpetual unrest, and would be a defiance of all the teachings of history which it has been the object of this essay to concentrate and focus. Even if it be true that Austria-Hungary wiU remain so closely connected with Germany as to make the two Powers almost one, or that, at any rate, if the Slavs break away, the German remnant, with the Magyars, will perforce agglome- rate themselves to Germany, stUl it should not be done. Indeed, in the latter case a strong Slav State would materially assist in preserving the Balance of Power. The satisfaction of the various claims upon her may take away from Germany North Schleswig, Alsace-Lorraine, and Prussian Poland. Germany Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 159 Proper should be allowed to remain one nation and State if she so desires.^ 15. Turkey. The writer hardly dares to submit any suggestion for dealing with the graver matters concerning the Turkish Empire. A few words may be said. It is presumed that the independence of the Sultans of Egypt and Mecca will be recognised, that Albania wiU be practically independent, that in whosesoever hands Constantinople remains, the right of free and unfettered commercial passage through the two Straits and Sea of Marmora, from and to the ports of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, will be established on the broadest lines and the firmest footing. The Straits and the two Seas find their nearest parallel in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes. The rule of the Congress of Vienna as to rivers (which has been applied to the St Lawrence), securing freedom of passage to the upper riparian proprietors, should be applied from the Upper Danube onward, as well as from the Don and Volga, to the mouth of the Dardanelles. The reply of the Allies to President Wilson puts forward as one of their objects 'the setting free of the populations subject to the bloody tjnranny of the Turks and the turning out of Europe of the Ottoman Empire as decidedly foreign to Western civilization.' ^ It is barely possible that the German elements in Austria might combine with Bavaria to form a separate South Germany. i6o Conclusions That every humane person would desire that all populations should be freed from the rule of the of&cial or governing Turk, that every Christian would desire that Constantinople should once again be a Christian city, that if Russia de- sired to have Constantinople Great Britain need have no fear, are propositions which the writer has supported any time during the last forty years. But it does not appear from the recent manifesto of the Provisional Russian Government as if Constantinople were now desired; while to Rou- mania and the States higher up the Danube, to Bulgaria, and to the State — whatever it may be — to which the Asiatic shores of the Black Sea belong, it may be a matter of great importance that some other arrangement should be made for the custody of their outlet into the Mediterranean. Lastly, if the Ottoman Empire be turned out of Europe, whither is it to be turned ? Since the Treaty of Berlin it has been the Asiatic subjects of the Porte, especially the Armenians, that have been treated the worst. They have been the chief victims of its ' bloody tyranny.' In this state of uncertainty and difficulty, it is possible to make tentative suggestions : 1. With regard to the conquests of Great Britain and Russia the rule uti possidetis could be applied, so that each could retain her conquests. 2. France may desire to reassert her old interest in the nature of a Protectorate of the tribes in the Lebanon. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace i6i 3. There is still Italy's possession of some of the Islands, which are inhabited by Greeks though not as yet part of Greece, to be con- sidered. 4. Constantinople and the shores of the Straits and Sea of Marmora might be placed under the dominion of a small protected State. 5. The remnant of the Turkish Empire could be invited to form a new State under the control of the four Powers above mentioned. 6. Anyhow, care should be taken that Turkey does not remain under German influence, and that there is not a German dominion from Berlin to Bagdad. So far the writer has endeavoured to follow the Reply of the Allies as a guide to future national and territorial arrangements, whether they be by way of compensation to the victors or by way of redress of grievances. In addition, there will be the usual ' Clauses of Amnesty ' (to return to Professor Bernard's phraseology). These, it is presumed, will be for the ordinary soldier and citizen in the widest form which diplomatic precedent suggests. AU inhabitants of territories retroceded by the Allies will be protected. Scrupulous care will be taken that all prisoners of war be released; The excuse may be made by Germany that some are detained for common law crimes. If any such answer be made it should not be accepted without investigation, and delivery should be insisted on, unless the alleged crime be serious and the proof that it was committed, clear. In the i63 Conclusions same way the Allies will release their ordinary prisoners. But there will be enemies with whom a further reckoning will be necessary. If the time has not come, it will soon come, when war will be recognised as such a calamity, and in nine cases out of ten, such an unnecessary calamity, that not only should the aggressor State, and with the State all its citizens collectively, suffer, but the rulers or statesmen who have caused or induced their nation to enter into war should pay in person. Napoleon was so made to pay when he was sent to St. Helena. He was kept captive not as a prisoner of war, for his country was at peace ; not as an ordinary criminal, for he had committed no crime against the law of France ; nor because he had been guilty of ' War crime ' (to use the modern phrase). He was kept captive because he had been a wanton disturber of the peace of Europe. He had had his lesson in 1814, when he was reduced to the Sovereignty of the Isle of Elba. In 1815 he was punished. It is a fate which may overtake other sovereigns, presidents, and ministers. But if the Allies do not insist upon any such retribution for the wanton disturbance of the Peace of the whole world, there are war crimes for which punishment should be exacted, such punishment as will render the present criminals incapable of further crime and deter others in the future. The writer trusts that it will be a term of the Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 163 Peace that there be a strict investigation into some of the worst of the many war crimes com- mitted by Germans, and he fears he must add, Austrians. The man, or men, really responsible who gave the order en connaissance de cause should be dis- covered, he or they should be called upon to make their defence before a Court Martial, and if found guilty be punished with death, or such less sentence as the Court may award. Some of these men will be subordinate officers. At least it is to be hoped that some of the atrocities committed will have had no higher sanction. In other cases, when the subordinate has been acting under higher authority, his plea that he obeyed orders may for this occasion be accepted.^ Then he who gave the order must pay the penalty, whether he be General or Admiral in command. Minister, or Sovereign. Grotius, the main object of whose work, ' On the Laws of War and Peace,' was to prevent cruelty and lessen severity in war, when he comes to deal with the right of the conqueror over his prisoners, after pointing out that a distinction may be drawn unfavourably against those who were the authors of the war, proceeds : ' No mercy is sometimes shown to those who are taken prisoners or have surrendered, or their surrender on the condition that their lives should be spared is not accepted, if they have continued in arms notwithstanding that they ' Vide infra as to provision making this plea inadmissible in future. 164 Conclusions knew the war to be an unjust one ... or if they have broken faith or any other rule of the law of nations . . . ' » This is a wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times. The enemy States will have to submit to the occupation of sufficient of their territory to guarantee the payment of the indemnity and the performance of any other temporary conditions imposed upon them. The remaining subjects of the treaty are those in which the United States of America and the other American States (who, as these pages are being written, seem following her example), and China, will take the greatest interest, and in respect of which their presence at the Congress will be, as Mr. Lloyd George has pointed out, especially desirable. They must, to a certain extent, be treated together. And yet this seems paradoxical, for one subject is the prevention of future war, and the other contemplates future war and seeks to regulate it. But in reality there is a close con- nection between them, for to deprive a State of the power of truculence or of ' f rightfulness,' to use the accepted translation of the German schrecklichkeit, may be to deter it from going to war. Among the provisions for the future, there- 1 Interdum in captos aut deditos ssevitum aut deditionem sub vitae pacto non acceptam si qui de injustitia belli convicti tamen in armis perstitissent ... si fidem violassent aut aliud gentium jus. . . . De Jure Belli et Pads, Lib. III., cap. xi., sees. 5 and 16. See also cap. vii. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 165 fore, one will be the amendment and enforcement of the laws of war. A general outline of these laws has been given in Chapter VII. Many of them go into technical details as to which it would be unwise for one who is neither a naval nor a military expert to write. The suggestions, which the writer proposes to make, run on broader lines. First of all, as to amendment. This may take the form of new legislation, that is an addi- tion to existing rules, or it may take the form of declaration asserting the existence of rules, though they have been obscured and neglected. The following points require to be made good in one way or the other : Decent treatment of non-combatants. There should be prohibition of the practice stated to have been used by the Germans in Belgium and elsewhere, of sending unarmed men and women and children of the country in front of their forces as a screen against the enemy's fire. There is a story of calculated brutality and horror inflicted upon the women of Liege as an example of what Germany, when thwarted, might do, which, if it be true, should lead to the trial of the offenders or offender, and which, even if it be not true, has been so much reported that it would be desirable to state that such a practice was contrary to the laws of war. The enslaving of men and women, which has been practised by the Germans in Northern France and Belgium and by Bulgaria in Serbia, and is i66 Conclusions said to be threatened by Austria in Roumania, must be declared unlawful. It is perhaps hopeless to forbid vulgar loot or the carrying away or destruction of artistic treasures and monuments. In every settlement after a war, those who do these things have in the end to pay for them. At sea, it must be made an offence against the laws of war — a war crime — to sink merchant vessels which are not seeking to escape and which have not been summoned to surrender ; and equally a crime, when they have surrendered, to put those on board into open boats out of sight of land, or in rough weather. Belligerents who do this might almost as well imitate the ancient pirates and make men walk the plank. It must also be made an offence against the rights of neutrals according to International Law, to destroy any neutral vessel in any circum- stances, except when she is seeking to avoid capture. Also it must be made an offence against the rights of neutrals to destroy even a merchant vessel of a belligerent without providing for the safety of any neutral passenger on board. This provision may seem to be only a repetition of the provision making it a war crime to sink merchantmen of the belligerent without providing for the crew ; but it gives the neutral State a further right, and the protection to the neutral might be more ample. The next class of provisions should be : Any order to commit any war crime by land or sea — that is, all acts forbidden by the Conventions of Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace i.6j Geneva and St. Petersburg, and those of The Hague, which are generally accepted and enforced, and the war crimes to be set forth in the new treaty — should be declared to be unlawful orders which cannot be given by the superior officer, and which, if given, no soldier or sailor is bound to obey, so that he cannot plead obedience to orders as his Justification. Under the old rules of war no spy could plead that he was acting under orders ; no soldier who first showed the flag of truce or held up his hands and then fired upon those who came to receive his surrender, could plead that he was acting under the orders of his captain. Both captain and soldier would be shot or bayoneted without mercy. Such orders are no orders; and this doctrine should be extended to all other war crimes. The next step is to provide for an enforcement of these rules. Whether they be laws of war as between belligerents, or rules of International Law as between a belligerent and a neutral, the difficulty of providing a sanction is the difficulty which confronts every student of International Law. But the writer thinks that in this case he sees his way to suggest some sanction. His proposals are as follows : The form of the treaty should be such that each State, party to it, contracts with each and every other State which is a party, that in the event of war between it and any other State, parties to the treaty, it will observe towards the State with which it is at i68 Conclusions war, all the agreed rules of the laws of war ; and that any other State, party to the treaty, may deem it an offence against itself that the contract- ing State has violated the laws of war, each such violation, though not a direct injury to the neutral State, being considered nevertheless as an indirect injury, by reason of the lowering of the standard of conduct. It would be further provided that the neutral State should have a locus standi to remonstrate, and if its remonstrance were unheeded, to proceed to acts of retorsion,^ voies de fait, such as an em- bargo on the persons, ships, and property of subjects of the treaty-breaking nation, and in the extreme case, war. In this way it would be made clear that any breach by a belligerent is not merely a breach of contract with the other belligerent or belligerents, but is a breach of contract with every State, neutral as well as belligerent, which is a party to the International Convention. The reason of the thing points to this. Every violation of the laws of war, every breach of the dictates of humanity is injurious to nations not engaged in the war, as well as to nations which are engaged. It establishes a precedent which can, and probably will, be used in future wars— in wars in which some of these States now neutral may hereafter be engaged. It is to the interest of the civilised world that these provisions should be upheld ; and every State which is a party to the "^ Phillimore, International Law, vol. iii; sees. 7, 8, and 25. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 169 Convention should be recognised as injured by its breach ; and the treaty-breaker should know that the breaches may be redressed not only by re- prisals on the part of the other belligerents, but by some action on the part of any or all of the neutral States. Secondly, in respect of the conduct of bellige- rents towards neutrals. A determined effort will no doubt be made at the Congress to abolish the capture of private property at sea, except in the case of contraband, and probably to limit articles of contraband. The writer has already expressed,^ but must again repeat, his earnest hope that this effort will not prevail. He is conscious that his opinion is influenced by the fact that the retention of the rule is for the interest of Great Britain ; but he believes that the retention is also for the peace of the world. Destruction or capture of private property on land there has been and always will be. It is idle to treat war as a mere duel between the armed forces of the belligerents. But the nearer the approach to this idea of duel, the more the encouragement of great standing armies [and navies], the severer becomes the competition in time of peace, till economic exhaustion supervenes, or till one or other of the contending nations determines to bring the strife to an issue by war. A valuable remedy against the disease of great armaments is provided when war is made a contest between the belligerent nations in their 1 Vide supra, p. 126. 170 Conclusions entirety, States and citizens all alike being con- cerned and being as vulnerable on their commercial and industrial as on their military sides. So far from allowing the rule to be abolished, it must be brought back to its former strictness. The Declaration of Paris gives a double advantage to the belligerent who is inferior in sea power. Under the old French rule he had an advantage, inasmuch as if his ships were all de- stroyed he could still convey his goods in neutral bottoms ; but his ships as vehicles of neutral commerce became unpopular, as the belligerent flag rendered the neutral cargo liable to capture. Under the English rule belligerent property, whether ship or cargo, was captured, neutral property of either kind went free. The Declaration of Paris allowed the belligerent to offer his ships as safe vehicles for neutral commerce (thereby departing from the French rule), and to have his goods safely carried under a neutral flag (thereby departing from the English rule). It would be better to have the French rule than nothing. But the English rule is the logical and the really effective rule. Blockade is admitted on all hands as a legitimate act of warfare ; but blockade or invest- ment of a garrisoned town by land forces derives its chief value from the distress which it imposes upon the entire population, civil as well as military. On the other hand, while contending for the preservation of the present law of maritime capture and for a return to its original strictness, Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 171 the Allies must equally insist upon the suppression of those practices which, first introduced during the Russo-Japanese War, have attained their hideous and inhuman development at the hands of Germany and Austria-Hungary in the present War. The rule of law must be declared in the sense already stated in Chapter VIL of this essay ,1 and should then, like other rules of law respecting the conduct of belligerents towards neutrals, receive all the sanction that can be obtained for it. For this purpose a similar arrangement to that already suggested for enforcing the laws of war between belligerents should obtain. Each State, party to the treaty, should contract with every other State, party to the treaty, that in the event of war between it and any State, party to the treaty or not, it would observe not only to this neutral State, but to all other neutral States parties to the treaty, the rules of International Law — both those generally recognised and those particularly established by the treaty — and a locus standi and right of retorsion should be given on the same grounds to each State party to the treaty. These provisions might develop into a code of universal application, if provision were made, as has been made in the case of the Geneva and Hague Conventions, for other States not parties to the treaty adhering to it, taking its benefits and undertaking its obligations. * Vide supra, p. 126. 172 Conclusions No doubt there are objections to these pro- posals. It may be said that they encourage intermeddling, and may be used by some powerful and ambitious State to further its ends. But, on the other hand, if neutrals had been given a legal right to interpose either on behalf of humanity in respect of infringements of the laws of war, or on behalf of weaker neutrals against whom there had been an undue exercise of belligerent rights, their interposition at some early stage in the war, before matters had been embittered as they have been, might have been most effective. History tells us of some instances of attempts to remedy lack of solidarity among neutrals. Both the Treaties of Armed Neutrality were attempts in this direction. One side of the Monroe Doctrine, in the view taken of it by modern American statesmen, is that it is a claim by the most powerful State of the American Continent to treat an aggression upon any other State of that continent as an injury to itself. In this view there would be a Monroe Doctrine for all the States party to the treaty. Lastly, for any securities which can be invented to prevent or at least postpone future war. Limitation of armaments is a seductive pro- posal. The writer wishes that he had ever found it worked out in a practical form. It is hardlj' possible that any State would altogether give up having an army. It is certain that most States would refuse (reasonably or unreasonably Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace ly^ it is unnecessary to decide) to dispense with one. If there is to be an army what is to be the limit ? A fixed number for each State ? Those which are compact would have a vast advantage. Compare the position of Austria-Hungary with that of Russia, or that of a State which has few or no foreign possessions with that of France, Great Britain, or the United States. A percentage of the population ? This gives too much to the more populous nations. Moreover these limita- tions can all be evaded, as was done by Prussia after 1807, by passing the manhood of the nation in turn through the army, or by giving military training to the police. It might be possible to have an agreement of States as to the period of military training if there was universal conscription. The writer confesses that for purposes of discipline he would wish all the young men of every nation to pass for twelve months into the ranks of the army or navy. His regret is that some corresponding discipline cannot be invented for young women. But it would be necessary to fix an international period for this training. In the case of the Navy proportionate re- duction is even more difficult. The extent of coast to be protected, the dispersion of the national territory over the world, the amount of commerce, varies for each State. Arbitration is the other remedy. How much good arbitration has done can be read in Dr. 174 Conclusions Darby's most useful work.^ At present it is an admirable remedy when States have a disputed point but do not want to fight. It is of no value when they want to fight. In the first case they are like people who do not want to go to law but must somehow get some matter between them settled. In the second case they are like people who have quarrelled and are only too glad of any pretext for going to law. Can reference to some disinterested body be made generally useful ? The writer thinks so upon the following terms : First, it must be applicable to all cases. There must be no exception of cases of national honour and so forth. Every dispute must be referred in some form to a disinterested tribunal before the State goes to war. Against this it wiU be said that there are some claims to which no State could submit ; there are cases where, if the claim were submitted to arbi- tration and the award was one way, no State could obey the award. The writer entirely agrees. There are rights with which no State will part except under the compulsion of defeat in war. No award of arbitration ordering Serbia to do what Austria-Hungary exacted of her would have been obeyed by Serbia. No threat of war would in times past have induced Great Britain to give up her asylum for political refugees. But short of arbitration, mediation, or the submission of the question to a Tribunal of Advice, Opinion, or Conciliation would often save war. It * International Tribunals, by W. Evans Darby, LL.D., 1904. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 175 would give time to think, for passion to cool, and for a way out to be found without loss of dignity. The provisions as to mediation recommended by the Congress of Paris in 18561 should be modified and extended, and submission to it or to arbitration made compulsory. To compare very small things with great, the writer believes that in France and other nations which have taken the French codes for their model, ordinary disputes as to breaches of contract or debt not involving large matters are or may be submitted in the first instance to the Juge de Paix. He pronounces an opinion which is in form a decision, but is in substance only an expression of his view, and as such a guide to the parties, being the opinion of a disinterested person of some training and status. Neither party is bound by it. Either may go to law afterwards. But they have both had to pause, listen, and reflect. So would the writer have it, when disputing States were not willing to go to a formal arbitration or to undertake to submit to an award which might be adverse. Second point. If in ordinary civil life the contract contain an arbitration clause, a ' sub- mission to arbitration,' as English lawyers phrase it, exists, and either party can compel arbitration. He notifies the other party of his claim, puts it in his own way, nominates his arbitrator. If the other party do not nominate, the one arbitrator decides and the Courts compel obedience. If » Yide supra, p. 85. 176 Conclusions the other party come into the arbitration, the arbitrators decide whether the claim is one which arises under the contract and whether it is good or bad. But International Arbitration Treaties hitherto have only been agreements to agree. Neither party State can take the other before the Tribunal of The Hague or before any other tribunal, or insist upon any arbitration at all. The general promise to arbitrate is of itself of little value. It only imposes the moral duty on the two States to try and agree upon the question to be decided and the tribunal and the mode of arbitration. Lawyers and statesmen know that the statement of the question to be decided is usually the most controversial matter. Each arbitration in Dr. Darby's book has been the result of a Convention ad hoc. The Constitution of the United States happens to throw this into a very clear Ught. Every treaty requires the sanction of the Senate. It was attempted to make Arbitration Treaties according to which the subsequent Convention submitting any matter in dispute which arose to arbitration in accordance with promise should be an act of the Executive only. The Senate refused to agree to this. It said that each Convention is a treaty, none the less a treaty because it is made in compliance with a previous treaty. Each separate Convention as it arises must have a sanction. To meet this difficulty it should be provided Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 177 that there be standing Tribunals, whether of Arbitration, Concihation, Mediation, or Advice, which any State may invoke as of right. Third point. The scheme already suggested when improvement of the laws of war was under consideration must be applied also to this matter. Every State party to the great treaty must contract with every other State party to the treaty that it will observe these provisions, so that the making of war without a previous reference to the disinterested Tribunal would be a breach of contract with, and an offence against, every State party to the treaty, and might be lawfully resented and repressed by all or any of them. With the immediate causes of war taken away by a just distribution of territory and recognition of the claims of nationality, and with these pre- cautions for the future superadded, we may reasonably hope for a general and lasting peace. It may be said that the precautions are ineffective instruments. They only interpose obstacles and delays. It is true ; but nations, like individuals, are swept away for the moment by gusts of passion. Time to think, to learn the truth, to Hsten to the voice of a friend will prevent the outbreak of many a strife. If the United States had waited little more than one mail they would have learnt that Great Britain had made a step towards redressing their grievance, and probably there would have been no War of 1812. 178 Conclusions With equal probability we may say that if the British public had given itself time to learn the true sequence of dates, it would have recognised in the destruction of the Turkish Fleet at Sinope a legitimate act of warfare and not a piece of pre- war treachery by Russia, and there would have been no Crimean War of 1854, and that if Bismarck had given time to Germany and to France to learn the truth about the Benedetti incident, there would have been no Franco-German War in 1870. Not for many generations will the horrors and miseries of this war be forgotten. In hot blood anything may be done. Design- ing rulers may pervert their peoples. An angry people will overcome the counsels of the wisest ruler. But we may believe and hope that after this experience the nations of the earth wiU not in cold blood put their hands to such another war. CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF TREATIES TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE TEXT Poland and Russia . . (Kiwerowa Hoska) 1582 France and Turkey . . (Capitulations) . 1604 Spain and the States General. .. 1648 France and the Empire . (Mlinster) ) West- , The Empire and Sweden . (Osnabriick) ) phalia ^ France and Spain . . (Pyrenees) . . 1659 The Empire, Sweden, Poland (Oliva). . . 1660 and Prussia Poland and Russia . . (Andrusovo) . . 1667 England and the States . . 1667 General France and Spain . . (Aix-la-Chapelle) . 1668 England and Turkey . . (Capitulations) . 1675 The Emperor, Spain, England, (Nimeguen) . . 1678 States General, Sweden and France England and the States (Westminster) . 1678 General Russia and Poland . . (Moscow) . . 1686 France, Great Britain, States (Ryswick) . . 1697 General, Spain and the Empire Poland, Austria and Turkey . (Carlowitz) . . 1699 Russia and Turkey . . (Adrianople) . 171 3 Great Britain, France, Spain, (Utrecht) . . 1713 States General, Portugal and the Two Sicilies 179 i8o Chronological List of Treaties The Emperor and Turkey Russia and Sweden The Emperor and Spain The Emperor and Russia The Emperor and the King of Prussia Great Britain, the States General and the Emperor Russia, Denmark and the Emperor France and the Emperor The Emperor, Sweden, Russia and Turkey France and Turkey Great Britain, France, and the States General The Empress and Prussia Great Britain, France and Spain Russia and Poland Russia, Prussia and Austria . Russia and Turkey France and the United States The Emperor and Prussia Russia, Sweden and Denmark Great Britain, France, Spain and the United States Great Britain and France United States and France The Emperor and Turkey Russia, Prussia and Austria . Russia, Prussia and Austria . United States and Spain (PassRTOwitz) 1718 (Nystadt) . 1 721 (Vienna) 1725 (Vienna) 1726 (Wusterhausen) 1726 (Vienha) 1731 (Copenhagen) 1732 (Vienna) 1738 (Belgrade) . 1739 (Capitulations) 1740 (Aix-la-Chapelle) . 1748 (Hubertsburg) 1763 (Paris) 1763 .. 1768 (First Partition 1772 Treaty) (Kainardji) . 1774 (Friendship and 1778 Commerce) (Teschen) 1779 (First Armed Neu- 1780 traUty) ^ (Versailles) . 1783 (Commerce) . 1786 . . 1788 (Szistowe) . 1791 (Second Partition 1793 Treaty) (Third Partition 1795 Treaty) (Commerce and 1795 Boundary of Mexico) Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace i8i 1797 1799 1800 1800 1802 The Emperor and France . (Campo Formio) . United States and Prussia . (Commerce) . United States and France . (Commerce) . Russia, Sweden, Denmark and (Second Armed Prussia Neutrality) Great Britain, France, Spain (Amiens) and the Netherlands The Emperor and France France and Prussia Great Britain and Turkey Russia and Turkey Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia and France Great Powers and the Nether- lands Great Britain and United States (Ghent) . . 1814 Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, (Congress of Vienna, June 9, (Presburg) . (Tilsit) (Constantinople) (Bucharest) . (First Peace of Paris) (Convention, Paris) July 11, 1814 1805 1807 1809 1812 May 30, 1814 Austria, Spain, Sweden, Final Act) Portugal and France Great Britain, Austria, Russia, Prussia and France Great Powers and Switzerland United States and Central America Russia and Turkey United States and Brazil Russia and Turkey Great Powers and Belgium United States and Mexico Great Britain, France, Russia (London) and Bavaria United States and Chili Russia and Turkey Russia and Turkey United States and Spain United States and Peru. United States and Ecuador 1815 (Second Peace of Nov. 5, Paris) 1815 (Paris) Nov. 20, 1815 s (Fisheries and 1818 Boundaries) (Commerce) . 1825 (Ackerman) . 1826 (Commerce) . 1828 (Adrianople) . 1829 (London) 1831 (Commerce) . 1831 (London) 1832 (Commerce) . 1832 (Unkiar Skelessi) 1833 (St. Petersburg) 1834 (Commerce) . 1834 (Commerce) . . 1836 (Commerce) . . 1839 i82 Chronological List of Treaties Great Powers and the Nether- . . 1839 lands Great Powers and Belgium . . . 1839 Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, (London) . 1840 Russia and Turkey Great Powers and Turkey . . . 1841 United States and Argentine (Commerce) . . 1843 Confederation Austria, Prussia and Russia . (Concerning Cracow) 1846 United States and New Granada (Commerce) . . 1846 United States and Mexico . (Guadaloupe- 1848 Hidalgo) United States and Guatemala . (Commerce) . . 1849 Russia and Turkey . . (Balta Liman) . 1849 Denmark and Prussia . . . . 1850 United States and Salvador . (Commerce) . . 1850 United States and Costa Rica (Commerce) . . 1851 United States and Mexico . (Boundaries) . 1853 United States and Japan . (Commerce) . . 1854 Great Britain and the United (Boundaries) . 1854 Great Britain, France and . . 1854 Sardinia Great Britain and Sweden . . . 1855 Great Britain, France and . . 1856 Russia Great Britain, France, Sardinia, (Congress and Treaty 1856 Austria, Prussia, Turkey and of Paris) Russia United States and Bolivia . (Commerce) . . 1858 Six Powers and Turkey . . . 1858 Six Powers and Turkey . (Conference, Paris) 1859 France and Austria . . (VUlafranca) . 1859 France and Austria . . (Zurich) . . 1859 France and Sardinia . . (Second Treaty of 1859 Zurich) France, Sardinia and Austria . (Third Treaty of 1859 Zurich) Six Powers and Turkey . . . i86a Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace 183 Great Britain, France, Russia . . July 18, and Denmark 1863 Five Great Powers . . . . Nov. 14, 1863 Geneva .... (Convention) . 1864 Austria and Prussia . . (Prague) . . 1866 United States and Russia . (Cession of Alaska) 1867 The Six Powers, the Netherlands(London) . . 1867 and Belgium Geneva .... (Convention) . 1868 St. Petersburg . . . (Declaration of) . 1868 Great Britain and the North . . 1870 German Confederation Great Britain and France . . . 1870 S. German States and North (Versailles, German Jan. 18, German Confederation Empire formed) 1871 Great Britain, France, Turkey (Conference and Jan., and Russia Treaty of London) 1871 France and Germany . . (Versailles) . . Feb. 26, 1871 France and Germany . . (Frankfort) . . May, 1871 Great Britain and the United (Washington Arbi- May, States tration, Alabama, 1871 San Juan and Fisheries) Russia and Turkey . . (San Stefano) . 1878 Great Britain, Russia, France, (Congress and 1878 Austria-Himgary, Italy, Ger- Treaty of Berlin) many and Turkey Great Britain and Turkey . (Convention) . 1878 Prussia and Austria . . . . 1879 United States and Mexico . (Boundary) . . 1884 Great Britain, France, Germany, (Berlin Act) . 1885 Portugal, and Belgium Great Britain and many Powers (Brussels Act) . 1890 Great Britain and Germany . (Africa) . . 1890 Great Britain and France . (Zanzibar) . . 1890 China and Japan . • . (Shimonoseki) . 1895 184 Chronological List of Treaties Great Britain and United (Venezuela) . . 1897 States United States and Spain . (Paris) . . 1898 Hague (Conference) . . 1899 United States and Spain . (Treaty of Peace and 1902 Amity) United States and Cuba . . . 1903 Great Britain, many Powers (Submission to 1903 and Venezuela Hague Tribunal) Great Britain, France and (Morocco) . . 1904 Spain Great Britain and France . (Siam) . . 1904 Great Britain and Japan . (Alliance) . . 1905 Japan and Russia . . (Portsmouth, U.S.A.) 1905 Six Great Powers, Belgium, (Morocco) . . 1906 The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, the United States, and Morocco Geneva .... (Convention) . 1906 Hague ..... (Conference) . . 1907 Great Britain and the United {Modus Vivendi) . 1907 States Great Britain and Russia . (Persia) . . 1907 Great Britain and the United (Fishery Arbitra- 1909 States tion) London .... (Conference and 1909 Declaration of) Balkan League and Turkey . . . May 30, 1913 ' Greece, Serbia, Roumania and (Bucharest) . . Aug. 6, Bulgaria 191 3 Greece and Serbia . . (Defensive AUiance) 1913 INDEX Abrogation, of treati?s, Claims ot States as to, 6, 84, 134- 139 ; of clauses of Treaties of Utrecht (17 13), Aix-la- Chapelle (1748), and Paris (1763) concerning Dunkirk, 24, ^31 ; of clauses relating to Aland Islands, 48, 49 ; by- war, of treaties previously made between bellige- rents, 72, 105, 107, 132 ; of clauses concerning the neu- trality of the Black Sea, 84, 136 ; without warning, 84, 138-140 ; 103 ; of Declara- tion of Paris, 125, 126 ; of treaties by refusal to recog- nise a casus fcederis, 134 ; of Conventions between U.S.A. and France, 135 ; of provisions of Treaty of Berlin concerning Batoum, 136-137 ^ . ^ Acadia {See also Nova Scotia), ceded to Great Britain, 7, 23 ; boundary of, 7 ; French settlements in, 25 Ackerman, Treaty of (1826), 75. 181 ^ . , Acts of State, Junspradence in, 120 Adrianople, Treaty of (1829), 75, 181 ; provisions as to Moldavia and Wallachia, 75 ; navigation in Bosphorus and Dardanelles, 81, 96 Adrianople, City of, ceded to Bulgaria and regained by Turkey, 98 Adrianople, Treaty of (1713), 132, 179 Adriatic Sea, The, Territories of Venice on shores of, 45 .lEgean Sea, The, 90 Africa, Protectorates in, 6, 109, no, 154; German colonies in, 105, 152, 154 ; ' spheres of influence' in, 108-110 Africa, East, ' spheres of in- fluence ' in, 108, no ; boun- daries of, in coming peace, 148 ; arrangements as to, 152, 154 Africa, South- West, ' spheres of influence' in, 108, no; German colonies in, 154 ; German cruelty to natives and troops in, 154 Africa, West, ' spheres of in- fluence ' in, 108, no; Ger- man cruelties in, 154 African Treaties, 109 ; terri- tories, occupation of, 109 Agadir, German aggression at, III Agram Treason Trials, The, 157 Aix-la-Chapelle, Peace of (1668), 20, 21, 179 Aix-la-Chapelle, Treaty of {1748), 23, 28, 180 ; an inconclusive peace, 28, 29, t85 i86 Index 144 ; effect in North Ameri- can colonies, 28, 153 ; humour of, 29 Alabama claims, and arbitra- tion, 10 1 Aland Islands, Non-fortifica- tion of, 48, 49, 70 Alaska, cession by Russia to U.S.A. (1867), 145 Albania, Principality of, 99 ; independence of, in coming peace, 159 Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria, 92 Alsace, cession of, 7 ; 15 ; invasion of, by France, 18 ; possession of, by France, recognised, 19 ; Feudal rights of German Princes in, 26 ; ceded to Germany, 40, 69, 70 ; people of, 70-72, 145 ; feelings of people to be considered in coming peace, 148, 149 Alsace - Lorraine, 40 ; 69 ; BuflEer State and neutral, 143 ; boundary of, 149 ; Germany to lose, in coming peace, 158. (See also Lor- raine) America, French settlements in, 17 ; English settlements in, 18 ; effect of Treaty of Utrecht in, 23 ; States of, 143, 164 America, Central, under Span- ish rule in 1618, 18 ; States of, 104, 116 ; Treaty with U.S.A. (1825), 117 America, North, boundary in, 7, 31, 100 ; colonies in, 7, 17, 18, 28, 30, 31, 43 ; 25 ; colon- ists of, and cession of Cape Breton, 28, 153 ; Span- ish position in, 30 ; Indian tribes in, 10 1 ; Great Lakes of. 159 America, South, under Span- ish rule in 1618, 18 ; States of, 104, 116 America, United States of. (See United States) American Independence, De- claration of, 14, 28, 31 ; war of, 100, 153 Amiens, Peace of (1802), 144, 181 Amnesty, Clauses of, 8, 10, 161 Andrusovo, Treaty of (1667), 54. 179 Antwerp, Closing of, to com- merce, 20, 53 ; commercial freedom granted to, 52, 53 ; continued severance of, from sea for military purposes, 52, 53 ; a question for con- sideration in the coming peace, 53 Aquileia, Patriarch of, 150 Arbitration, as to boundary between Canada and the U.S.A., 7, 31, 100 ; French fishing rights in British waters, 24, 25 ; fishing rights of the United States in Brit- ish North American waters, 31, 10 1 ; advocated in Treaty of Paris (1856), 85, 175 ; Treaties of arijitra- tion, 85, 176 ; as to Alabama and San Juan claims, lor ; in Venezuelan disputes, 103 ; value as a prevention of war,^ 173-178 ; disinterested tri- bunals of, before declara- tion of war, 174, 176, 177 ; argument against, 174; should be made compulsory, 175 ; instances in which war might have been prevented by, 177, 178 Archduke Francis Ferdinand, Assassination of, 94, 157 Argentine Confederation, The, Treaty with U.S.A. (1843), 116, 182 Index 187 Armaments, Enormous scale of, 71 ; limitation of, 172 ; Prussia's mode of avoiding limitation of, 173 ; difficul- ties of fixing a limit, 173 ; naval, 173 Armed Neutrality, First (1780), 121, 180; Treaties of, 172 Armenians, Massacres of, 89 ; reforms promised to, 95 ; chief victims of the ' bloody tyranny ' of Turkey, 96, 160 Artois, 15 Asia, Increase of Russian terri- tory in, 88 ; Continent of, 104 Asia Minor, Russian conquests in, 89 ; Turkish provinces in, 89, 95, 133 ; Armenians in, 96, 160 Asiatic Powers, Treaties with, 104 ; shores of the Black Sea, 160 Augsburg, Recess of, 150 Augustenburg, Duke of, claimed Schleswig-Holstein, 39 ; supported by Diet of Frankfort, 39 Australia, Probable desire of, as to future peace, 148, 153 ; captured German Colonies in Pacific, 153 Austria, 6, 12 ; Upper and Lower, 16 ; hereditary do- minions of, 16, 26 ; acquisi- tion of Spanish Netherlands, 20, 49, 143 ; possessions of the House of, 26 ; succession to the Imperial Throne of, 26-29 ; ''party to Treaty of Hubertsburg, 30 ; party to the Treaty of Prague, 30, 40, 65, 66, 69, 70 ; gains of, by the Partition Treaties, 32, 33, 57. 58 ; acquired Venice and part of Dal- matia, 33, 45 J at war with Prussia (1866), 33, 40. 65, 66 ; recognised the Kingdom of Italy, 34; 35; 36; joint leader of German Confedera- tion, 37 ; 38 ; PoUsh pro- vinces of, not in German Confederation, 38, 61 ; and Schleswig-Holstein, 39, 40, 66 ; consented to dissolu- tion of German Confedera- tion, 40, 41, 66 ; 40 ; 43 ; 44 ; and the Congress of Vienna, 45. 58 ; attacked by Sar- dinia, 46 ; 46 ; administration of, in Austrian Poland, 59 ; Cracow under protec- tion of, 59 ; Cracow ' re- stored ' to, 61 ; 62 ; at War with Sardinia and France, 63 ; and the Treaties of Zurich, 63 ; 64 ; befriended Saxony, 66 ; and population of North Schleswig, 66, 69 ; suggested union of South German States and German units of, 68, 158, 159 ; demonstration in favour of union at Vienna, 68 ; party to Treaty with Prussia, 70 ; party to Treaty of Carlowitz, 74 ; party to Convention of London (1840), 81, 82 ; demanded Congress after Russo-Turkish war, 87 ; 90 ; occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina, 90, 93 ; as- sumed complete sovereignty of the two States, 93 ; breach of agreement with Turkey, 93 ; persecutions in Bosnia- Herzegovina, 93, 157 ; out- rages in present war, 127, 163, 166, 171 ; the Austrians in coming peace, 148 ; 150 ; future of Austrian Polish provinces, 156. {See also Austria-Hungary) Austria-Hungary, and Bosnia- Herzegovina, 93, 94, 157 ; i88 Index jealousy of, 94, 98 ; and maritime warfare, 127, 171 ; interpretation of Declara- tion of London by, 130 ; party to Triple Alliance, 134 ; Slavonic countries in, 146, 156 ; 151 ; Poles in, 156 ; Roumanian lands in, 156 ; dominions of, 157 ; 158 ; close connection with Germany, 158 ; German ele- ments in, 68, 158, 159; 173; 174. {See also Austria) Austrian Netherlands, 20 ; 49, 143 Austrian Succession, War of, 28 Azov, Sea of, 80 ; ports of, in coming peace, 159 Baden, outside the North German Confederation, 66 ; South Germans from, at Vienna, 68 Bagdad, 161 Balance of Power, The, a political maxim and its defi- nition, 4 ; an alternative to, 4 ; important questions af- fecting, II ; necessity of, 13 ; supports principles of Inter- national Law, 13 ; in Treaty of Westphalia, 13, 19 ; in Treaty of Utrecht, 22 ; in Treaty of Berlin, 88 ; resto- ration of, in coming peace, 143 ; suggested efiects of present war upon, 143 ; for- mation of strong Slav State would preserve, 158 Balearic Islands, 31 Balkan Powers, 97 Balkan League declared war on Turkey, 98 ; Treaty with Turkey (1913), 98 Balkan States and War of Partition, 99, 146 ; position should be settled in coming peace, 99 Balkans, The, 90, 91 Balta Liman, Treaty of (1849), 76 Baltic Sea, The, Nations on the shores of, 14, 17, 25, 53 ; eastern shores of, 17 ; naval forces in, 49 ; new Baltic Power, 49 ; protection of coasts of, 49 ; and Russia, 55 Bar, Due of, also Duke of Lorraine, 22 Barrier Fortresses, 21, 49 ; Treaties, 21, 143 Basel, city of, 12 Batoum, made a free port, 88, 136; ukase terminated free- dom, 137 Bavaria, The Elector of (Charles Albert) recognised Pragmatic Sanction, 27 ; elected Emperor, 28; death of, 28 Bavaria, gained territory, 41 ; outside North German Con- federation, 66 ; South Ger- mans from, at Vienna, 68 ; suggested union with German elements in Austria, 68, 158, ^159; 145 I M « ( Bavaria, King of, supported proclamation of King of Prussia as German Emperor, 69 Bavaria, Otho of, first King of Greece, 75 Belgians, The, 50 Belgians, King of, 96, 109, no Belgium, Sufferings in the present war, 21 ; 35 ; 36 ; rights of inhabitants of, 50 ; union with Holland, 50, revolt from Holland, 50, 60, 145 ; independence of, recognised (1831), 50, 147 ; continued war with Holland, Index 189 51, 147 ; neutrality of, declared, 51, 53 ; neutrality of, respected in Franco- German War, 51 ; neutral- ity ignored in present war, 51, no, 142 ; future of, 52, 68, 147 ; party to the Treaty of London (1867), 67 ; improvement of present anomalous position by union with Luxemburg, 68, 147 ; reason of introduction into present war, 71 ; Congo State acquired by, 109 ; party to Treaty as to Mor- occo, III ; experience of owners of property in, during present war, 126 ; outrages on non-combatants in, 126, 165 ; enslaving men and women of, by Germany, 165 Belgrade, Treaty of (1739), 74, 180 Belle Isle restored to France, 43 Belligerents, Laws of war be- tween, 112, 1 13-120, 167, 171 ; laws of war between, and neutrals, 112, 120 sqq., 167 ; violations of rules by, and reprisals, 67, 113, 114, 168, 169 ; removal of, and their goods from an enemy country, 102, 104, 105, 115, 116, 117; populations in invaded lands defending un- occupied territory, to be regarded as, 118 ; rights and duties of, in respect to neu- trals, 120, 121, sqq. ; and blockade, 120 ; neutral trade with, 121 ; interference with neutral trade, 121 ; and capture of private property at sea, 120, 122, sqq. ; a, who has lost his merchant navy, 124, 125 ; ships of, 127, 130, 17.0 ; assertion of rights of, by Germany and Austria, 127 ; reduction of powers of, by Declaration of London, 128, 129 ; position of, 131 ; and war crimes, 166 ; destruction of mer- chant vessels by, 166 ; con- duct towards neutrals, 169, 171 ; Declaration of Paris and, 170 Benedetti Incident, The, 178 Berlin, 161 Berlin, Treaty of (1878), a Congress Treaty, 12 ; 79 ; 86, 87 sqq. ; a source of the present war, 87, 88 ; changes made by, 88 ; objections to, 88 ; Balance of Power in, 88 ; declared Batoum a free port, 88 ; and the Bal- kan question, 90, 97 ; useless provision in, 96 ; rectifica- tion of Greek frontier, 96 ; half measures of, 99 ; 133 ; 136; 145; 183 Berlin, Congress of, 87 ; Austro- Hungarian and Ottoman Plenipotentiaries at, 93 ; 183 Berlin Act of 1885 (Congress Treaty), as to Africa, 108, 109; provisions as to Congo State, 109, no; navigation of the Congo and Niger, 109 ; 183 Berlin, Decree of, 121 Bernadotte, and the Congress of Vienna, 46 Bessarabia, ceded by Russia to Turkey as part of Moldavia, 77 ; restoration by Rou- mania, 88, 94 Bishops in Denmark and Nor- way, 47 Bishop Prince of the Trent, 150 Bishoprics, The three, of Lor- raine, 19, 22 ; of Lifege, 50 ; of Trent, 150 igo Index Bismarck, 65, 70, 178 Black Sea, The, 17, 80 ; coun- tries bordering on, 80 ; war- ships in, 80-82 ; neutrality established, 83, 84 ; articles of neutrality cancelled by Russia, 84, 136 ; a problem in the coming peace, 84 ; ports of, 159 ; Asiatic shores of, 160 Blockade, ' A peaceful,' 97 ; an unquestioned belligerent right, 120, 170 ; a, which is not a real blockade, 120 ; ' paper blockade ' denounced, 121 ; ' effective ' block- ade, 121, 124 ; ' submarine blockade,' 123, and The Hague Conference (1907). 127 ; of a garrison town, 170 Bohemia, kingdom of, 16 ; religious persecution and in- surrection in, 18 ; throne declared elective, 18 ; the Elector Palatine chosen as king, 18 ; Czecho-Slovaks in, 156 ; insurrection in the present war, 157 ; desertion of soldiers in, 157 ; wishes of peoples in, 156, 157 ; large portion of, wholly German, 257 ; future of, 157 Bolivia, Treaty with U.S.A. (1858), 116, 182 Bombardment, of open towns, 113 ; by naval forces in war time, 119 Bosnia, revolt in, 87 ; reforms in, 87 ; occupation of, by Austria, 90, 93 ; administra- tion of, 93 ; religious per- secutions in, 93 ; annexa- tion by Austria, 93 Bosnia-Herzegovina, subjuga- tion of, 93, 157 ; southern Slavs of, 156 Bosphorus, The, 80 ; narrow- ness of, 80 ; provisions as to entrance of ships of war into, 80-82 ; commercial free- dom of, 81 ; objections to closing, 82 ; in the coming peace, 84, 159, 160 Boundaries, should be accord- ing to geography and oro- graphy, 2, 3, 7; of Alsace, 7 ; of Acadia, 7 ; between Canada and the United States, 7, 31, 100 ; in Africa, 7, 148 ; between Great Britain and France, in America, 7 ; between France and Spain, 20 ; of France and Lorraine, 22 ; of France, 42 ; of Spain and Portugal, 43 ; of Luxemburg, 51, 147 ; of Russia and Poland in 1660, 54 ; of Russia at the Congress of Vienna, 58 ; the River Main, southern bound- ary of the North German Confederation, 66 ; of Greece, 96, 97, 144, 145 ; of Bulgaria, 90, 147 ; San Juan dis- pute, 10 1 ; of Japan and China, 105 ; of Alsace- Lorraine in coming peace, 149 ; of Roumania and Italy, 150, 151 Bourbons, The, power of, checked by Treaty of Utrecht, 28 ; restoration of, in France, 36 ; restored in kingdom of the Two Sicilies, 36 ; misgovernment of, 44, 46; 45 Brandenburg, now called East Prussia, 57 ; Elector of, 57 ; subordinate to Sweden and Poland, 57 ; Duke of Prus- sia, 57 Brandenburg, Mark of, 57 BrazU, Treaty with the United States (1828), 117, 181 Breton seamen, 25 Index 191 British, North American waters. Fishing in, granted to France, 24 ; to U.S.A., 31, loi. Law of J inherit- ance to the throne, 38 ; 47 ; 48 ; Foreign Secretary, 51, 65, 128, 129, 137 ; Prime Minister, 51 ; Foreign Office, 60 ; Fleet, 82 ; Public, 82, 178 ; Ambassador to St. Petersburg, 87 ; Orders in Council, 121 ; Government, 125 ; Delegates at the Hague Conference, 128 ; Prize Courts, 128 ; protection to natives in former German Colonies, 154-5 Brussels, Conference at (1900), 117 Bucharest, Treaty of, 181 2, provision for good govern- ment of Servia, Moldavia and Wallachia, 74, 75, 181 Bucharest, Peace of, 1913, closed Balkan Partition War, 98 ; 184 Buffer States, Utility of, 142 ; a chain of, 143 Biigenhagen, and the Danish Episcopacy, 47 Bukovina, Roumanian claim to, 151 Bulgaria, Revolt in, 87 ; re- forms in, 87 ; extent of, proposed in Treaty of San Stefano, 90 ; arrangements for, in Treaty of BerUn, 90 ; constitution of, 91, 92 ; at war with Serbia, 92, 97 ; Eastern Roumelia acquired by, 92 ; union with Eastern Roumelia, 92 ; joins Balkan League, 98 ; declares war on Turkey (1912), 98 ; dis- pute and war with Greece and Serbia, 98 ; losses in Partition War, 98 ; action of, in present war, 98; Serbia and Greece make defensive alliance against, 98 ; 99 ; 134 ; future compensation to Serbia and Montenegro, 146 ; 147 ; and future of Constantinople, 160 ; en- slavement of men and women from Serbia, 165 Bulgaria, Prince Alexander of, elected and dethroned, 92 ; appointed Governor-General of Eastern Roumelia, 92 Bulgaria, Prince Ferdinand of, elected, 92 ; proclaimed him- self king, 92 Bulgars, The, 147 Bullets, Expanding, use of forbidden, 117, 118 Byalistock, 58 California, Northern, ceded to U.S.A., loi Cameroons, The, Special pro- tection of, 154 Campio Formio, Treaty of (1797). 33. 181 Canada, boundary of, 7, 31, 100 ; French settlements in, 17 ; protection of Roman Catholics in, 30 ; recogni- tion of conquest of, by Great Britain, 30 ; loyalty of, 31 ; 43 Canning, Prophetic phrase ful- filled in present war, 143 Cape Breton, retained by France, 23 ; Fishermen of, 25 ; cession of, 43, 153 Cape Colony, Union of hearts efiected by present war, 42 ; troops of, 154 ; people of, 154 Capitulations, for protection of subjects in Turkey; with France (1604), 73 ; (1740), 73. 76 ; with England (1675), 73 .; . 179 192 Index Capture of Private Property at Sea, 120, 122 sqq. ; 169, 170 ; an unquestioned belligerent right, 122 ; attempts to in- duce States to abandon, 122, 126, 127, 169 ; French, rule for, 124, 170; old British rule for, 124-126, 131, 169, 170 ; the rule of free goods, free ships, as to, 123 ; Articles in the Declaration of Paris, as to, 124, 125 ; argument in favour of abandonment, 126; opposition of the writer and Lord Justice Kennedy to abandonment, 126 ; The Hague Conference and, 127 ; Declaration of London and, 127-130 ; validity of cap- ture, 129 ; safety of persons on captured vessels, 129, 130, 166 Carelia, ceded to Russia (1721), 55 Carinthia, 16 ; Southern Slavs of, 156 Casus fcsderis, The question of, too often raised, 8 ; between Greece and Serbia, 98, 134; difficulties indeciding whether it has arisen, 133 ; between Great Britain and States- General, 133, 134 ; between Italy and Germany and Austria, 134; an ally in refusing to recognise, abro- gates the Treaty, 134 Catalonia, Insurrection in, 18 Catharine I., Empress of Russia, agreed to the Pragmatic Sanction, 27 | Catharine II., Empress of Russia, and Poland, 55 ; in- terfered on appeal from the Dissidents, 56 | Cavour, 62 Central Empires, Reduction of military power in, 143 ; pre- ponderance of military power in, 143, 144 ; 144 ' Chambers of Reunion,' 7 Charles, Prince of Hohenzol- lern, Hospodar of Moldavia and Wallachia, 86 Charles Albert, King of Sar- dinia, 46 Charles V., Emperor, and the Austrian Succession, 26, 27 ; death of, 28 Chili, Treaty with United States (1832), 117, 181 China, Treaty with Japan (Shi- monoseki), 8, 104 ; claimed suzerainty over Corea, 104, 109 ; war with Japan, 104 ; ceded territory to Japan, 104 ; opened ports to the Japanese, 105 ; and treat- ment of released prisoners, 105 ; position of, in Russo- Japanese war, 106, 107 ; leased territory to Russia and Germany, 106 ; consent of, to cessions of territory by Russia, 106 ; restoration and development of territory by, 106 ; ejection of Germans from, 148 ; in the coming peace, 164 Chino- Japanese War, 8, 104 Christian IX., King of Den- mark, Succession of, 39 Christians in Turkey, 5 ; Ca- pitulations and, 73, 74, 76; Latin and Greek, 76 ; mis- government of, 76 ; Firman issued by Sultan regarding, 78 ; ill-treatment of, 79, 87 ; 89 ; relief and protection of, 76, 79, 87, 88, 89 ; 85 ; mas- sacre of Armenian, 89, 96, 160 ; Liberty promised to, 95 Circassians, Cruelty of, to be controlled, 95 Cologne, Elector of, recognised the Pragmatic Sanction, 27^ Index 193 Colonies, of England in 161 8, 18 ; in North America, 7, 18, 23, 24, 28, 30, 31, 42, 43, 134. 153 ; in Africa, 6, 42, I ijO ; Australia, and New Zealand, 148, 153 ; incoming peace, 152-3. Of France, 7, 17, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 42, 43. Dutch, 17 ; 42. Spanish, 18, 30, 43. Portuguese, 17, 18, 148. Of Modern Germany, 105, 106, 148, 153, 154 Command of the Sea, The, 123 Compensation for injuries in present war, suggested, for Serbia and Montenegro, 146; Belgium, 146, 147 ; Luxem- burg, 147 ; Roumania, 148, 149, 150, 151 ; France, 148, 149 ; Russia, 148, 151 ; Portugal, 148, 155 ; Italy, 149, 150, 151 ; Great Britain and her Colonies, 151, 152 ; Poland, 151, 155, 156 Confederation of the Rhine, 30 ; formed by Napoleon I., 35 ; extent of, 35 ; a factor in dissolution of the old Empire, 37 Confiscation of goods captured at sea, 115 ; cargoes of munitions, 122 ; 123 ; rules for, 124 ; Declaration of Allies concerning, during present war, 125, 126 ; De- claration of London and, 129 Congo, Navigation of the, 109 Congo State, Neutrality of the, 109 ; taken by King of the Belgians, 109, no; neutrality ignored in present war as reprisal for that of Belgium, no, 142 Congress Treaties, 11, 12 ; 109 ; Westphalia (1648), 11, 12; Vienna (1815), ir, 12 ; Paris (1856), 12, 77 ; Berlin (1878), 12 ; The Berlin Act, 109 Congress Kingdom, 53 Congress, The coming Inter- national, 119, 164, 169 Conscription, 173 Constantine, King of Greece, Abdication of, 99 Constantinople, the fencing school of diplomatists, 79 ; English Fleet sent to, 81, 82 ; defence of, 82 ; future ruler of, 152, 159 ; a Chris- tian city, 160 ; the future of, 160, 161 Constantinople, Treaty of (1809), 80, 181 Contraband, A belligerent right, 120 ; laws of war concerning, 121 ; seizure of munitions as, 122 ; cases of ' conditional contraband,' 122 ; changes in fifty years, 122 ; 124 ; the Hague Con- ference and, 127 ; English ships carrying, in Russo- Japanese War, 128, 129, 131 ; subject for International Congress in coming peace, 169 Convention [See also Treaties), between GreatBritain, France and Russia (Treaty of Paris, 1856), agreeing to non-forti- fication of the Aland Islands, 48, 49, 182 Convention of Cracow, 60, 182 Convention of July 11, 1814, 50, 181 Convention of London (July, 1840), 81, 82, 182 Convention between Great Powers and Turkey (1858), 86, 182 Convention between Great Britain and Germany (1890), 108, no, 183 o 194 Index Convention between the United States and France {1778, 1788), 135, 176, 180 Copenhagen, Treaty of (1732), 27, 180 Corea, Cause of Chino- Japan- ese War, 104 ; independence acknowledged, 104 ; para- mount interests of Japan in, 107 ; annexed by Japan, 109 ; people of, 105, 145 Corsica, ruled by Genoa, 16 Costa Rica, Treaty with United States (1851), 117, 182 Courland, belonged to Poland, 54 ; given to Russia, 58 Cousa, Prince, Hospodar of Moldavia and WaJlachia, 86 Cracow, Republic of, 58-61 ; declared a free city, 59 ; neutrality of, 59 ; protec- tion of, 59 ; ' restored ' to Austria, 61 ; Polish popula- tion of, 156 Cracow, Convention of (1846), 60, 182 Crete, Island of, 96 ; govern- ment of, by Sultan, 97 ; insurrection in, 97 ; Prince George of Greece, High Com- missioner, 97 ; annexed to Greece, 97 Crimea, The, 62 Crimean War, 12, 62 ; causes of, 76 ; pretexts for, 96 ; concluded by Treaty of Paris {1856), 77; 79; 82; 124; 178 Croatia, Southern Slavs of, 156 Cuba, Unusual provision in Treaty of Paris (1898) as to, 102 ; occupation of, by United States, 102 ; Treaty with U.S.A. {1903), 102 ; constituted a Republic, 102 Cyprus, ceded to Great Britain, 79, 90 ; in the coming peace, 152 Czechs, Distribution of the, 157 Czecho-Slovaks, The Uberation of, 156 Dalmatia, held by Venice, 17, 33 ; Southern Slavs of, 156 Danes, The, Heligoland taken from, 42, 110, 152 Danish Provinces of Sweden, 16 ; -speaking race in Schles- wig, 39. 153 Danube, Kilia mouth of the, 77 ; free navigation of, 80, 95 ; police vessels for, 82, 83 ; 90 Danube, The Upper, in coming peace, 159 ; States bordering on, 160 Danzig, assigned to Prussia, 37 Dardanelles, The, 80 ; narrow- ness of, 80 ; entrance of ships of war into, 80, 81, 82 ; objections to closing, 82 ; in coming peace, 84, 159, 160 ; 159 Declaration of London. {See London) Declaration of Paris. (See Paris) Denmark, Treaty with Prussia (1850), 10, II, 39, 182; Sweden in subjection to, i5 ; Norway one kingdom with, 17, 47 ; King of, formed Leagtie with German States, 18 ; agreed to Pragmatic Sanction, 27 ; King of, in German Confederation, 38, 39 ; Royal Family of, and Schleswig, 38 ; war with Austria and Prussia, 40 ; cedes Schleswig-Holstein to Prussia and Austria, 40 ; 42 ; Heligoland taken from, 42, no, 152 ; 44 ; and Napoleonic Wars, 47 ; re- Index 195 ligion in, 47 ; importance before 1660, 53 ; ceded part of Sweden, 54 ; 66 ; North Schleswig and, 66 ; 69 ; 80 ; proposed cession of Heligoland in coming peace, 152. 153 Denmark, Frederick VII., King of, death of, 39 Denmark, Succession of Christian IX., King of, 39 Denunciation of Treaties, 6, 118 ; of Declaration of Paris, 125, 126 ; 133 ; necessity of prior, 138, 139 Desirade, de la, 43 Diet of Frankfort, 37, 39 Directory, Treaties of, 15, 33, 34 ; Wars of, 33 Dissidents, The, 5 ; protected in Poland, 55 ; Legality of Confederation recognised, 56 Dnieper, The river, 54 Dobrudja, The, 98 Dominica, ceded to Great Britain, 43 Don, The river, in coming peace, 159 Doubs, Department of, 20 Dover, Straits of, 83 Druses, The, Conflict with Maronites, 78 Dunkirk, Fortifications of. Provisions concerning, in the Treaties of Utrecht (1713), Aix-la-Chapelle (1748) ; Paris (1763), Versailles (1783), 23, 24; 31 Duration of Treaties, imposing special obligations, 6 ; for term of years only advocated, 8 ; Chap VIII., passim ; examples of Treaties made for fixed period, 132 ; ter- minated by denunciation, 133 ; abrogated by refusal to recognise a casus foederis, 134 ; claims of single States to abrogate, 134 sqq. ; cir- cumstances which may jus- tify the termination of, 137— 139 ; necessity of due notice of termination, 138, 139 ; punishment of those who wantonly break, without notice, 139, 140 Dutch Colonies, 17, 42; occu- pation of fortresses on French frontier, 21 ; law of inheri- tance, 38 ; Republic {See Netherlands, Low Countries, States-General and Holland) ; territory on banks of the Scheldt, 52, 147 ; nation, commercial jealousy of, 52, 53 ; neutrality, appreciation of, by Germany, 68 Dutch Limburg, annexed to Holland, 68 ; neutrality of, respected in present war, 68 East Indies, Portuguese and Dutch settlements in, 17 Ecuador, Treaty with (1839), 117, 181 Egypt, British interests in, 1 1 1 Egypt, Sultan of, 159 Elba, Napoleon I. in, 36, 162 Elector Palatine, chosen by Bohemians as King, 18 ; ejected from Bohemia, 18 ; supported by Protestant States of Germany, 18 Emperor of the French (Napoleon III.), 63, 65 Emperor, The, 11 ; Germany subject to, in 1618, 16 ; claim of, to Bohemia, 18 ; death of, 18; the new, 18 ; power of, limited by Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, 19 ; 20 ; 26 ; Elector of Bavaria elected as, 28 ; Imperial Tri- bunals of, 36 ; Abandonment of Imperial rights by, 37; 196 Index and Treaty of Passarowitz, 132, 180 Emperor Charles VI., and the Pragmatic Sanction, 26-28 Emperor Joseph I., 27 Emperor Joseph II., 53 Empire, The, of France, 36 Empire, The (Holy Roman) 12 ; 16 ; 26 ; Feudatory Princes of, 16, 22, 26, 33, 36 ; 18 ; recognised Pragmatic Sanc- tion, 27 ; Imperial Tribunals in, 36 ; destruction of, 37 ; 37 ; 69 ; the Trentino a part of, 150 ; 150 Enclaves in Lorraine, owned by France, 22 Enemy, Reprisals against, 113 ; Merchant ships of, 115, 123, 124, 128 ; goods of , 115, 125, 126 ; invasion of non-occu- pied territory by, 118 ; blockade of ports of, 120 ; blockade of coasts of, 121, 125 ; cargo of, 123, 124 ; property of, 124, 126; flag of, 125 ; crimes of, 161-2 ; States of, 164 Enemy Soldiers incapacitated for further service to be sent home, 117 England, 12 ; in 1618, 15 ; settlements in Virginia and New England, 18 ; acquired Nova Scotia and New- foundland, 23 ; 43 ; 87 ; Cyprus ceded to, 89 England, James I., king of, 15, 18 Epirus, given to Greece, 96 Ermeland, given to Prussia, 57 Esthonia, ceded to Russia, 55 Europe, The States-system of, 9 ; 13 ; in 1618, 15 sqq. ; 22 ; 25 ; 62 ; 65 ; 152 ; reorganization of, 153 ; re- modelled, 155 ; Ottoman Empire to be turned out of. 159, 160 ; Napoleon, a dis- turber of the peace of, 162 ; 177 Europe, Central, 14, 71 Europe, Eastern, Chapter V., passim.Ti; 146, 148, 150, 151, 156-161 Europe, Western, 62, 72 European Statesmen and the Balance of Power, 4; 143. Powers and States, 12 ; 15-17 ; 32191; 103, 104; Chapter IX., 146, sqq. Treaties, 14, 87, 90, 1 04 ; provinces of Turkey, 86 ; possessions in Africa, 109 Expanding bullets prohibited, 117, 118, 119 ' Federal Execution ' decreed by Diet of Frankfort, 39 Federal Fortresses established, 37. 67 Fengtsen, Peninsula of, ceded to Japan and abandoned, 104 Ferdinand, Prince of Bulgaria, 92 ; proclaims himself king, 92 Ferdinand I., brother of Charles V. of Germany, descendants of, 16 Feudatory Princes of Germany, i5, 22, 26, 33, 36 Finland, 16 ; loss of, ' by Sweden, 47 Finland, Gulf of, 49 ; southern shores of, 54, 55 First Coalition, The (1791), 26 Fishing Rights in British North American Waters, granted to France, 24, 25 ; granted to the United States, 31, 101 ; arbitrations concerning American rights, 31, 101 Florence, Capital of Kingdom of Italy, 64 Florida, Under Spanish rule. Index 197 18 ; cessions and retroces- sions, 30 Formosa, ceded to Japan, 104 France, Cession of Alsace to, 7 ; boundaries of territory of, 7, 20, 22, 42, 149 ; a mediating Power, 11 ; and Peace of Westphalia, 12 ; in Crimean War, 12, 62, 124 ; and Treaty of Berlin, 12 ; in 1 61 8, 15 ; established settlements in Acadia and Newfoundland, 17 ; and Thirty Years' War, 18 ; Title of, to Alsace recognised, 19 ; 19 ; 20 ; possessions of, in Lorraine recognised, 19, 22 ; war with North German Coniederation (Franco-Ger- man), 19, 38, 40, 51, 62, 65, 69, 70, 71, 84, 118, 178 ; acquired territory north of the Pyrenees, 20 ; party to Treaty of Pyrenees (1659), 20 ; cessions and retrocessions of, in Spanish Netherlands, 21 ; succession to the throne of, 21, 22 ; 22 ; and war of Spanish Succession, 22 ; ceded Acadia and Newfound- land, 23 ; and the fortifica- tions of Dunkirk, 23, 24, 31 ; National Debt of, 31, 32 ; acquired territory from Ven- ice, 33 ; treaties and annexa- tions, 33 ; territories ac- quired by Napoleon I., 35 ; 36 ; cession of Alsace-Lor- raine to Germany, 40, 65, 70 ; 40 ; 42 ; and Congress of Vienna, 42, 43 ; acquired Savoy, 42, 64 ; 44 ; assisted Greece, 44, 98, 99 ; 47 ; Convention with Great Britain and Russia, 48, 49 ; 49 ; Treaty with Great Britain respecting neutrality of Belgium, 51, 67 ; 58 ; protested against treatment of Poles, 60, 61 ; alliance with Great Britain and Sar- dinia, 62, 64, 124 ; and war against Austria, 63 ; party to Treaties of Zurich, 63 ; and the Papal States, 63, 64 ; withdrew troops from Rome, 65 ; warning from Lord Russell, 65 ; respected neu- trality of Luxemburg in 1870, 67 ; after-math of Franco-German War, 70 ; alliance with Russia and Great Britain a necessity, 70 ; and Treaty of Frank- fort, 70, 71 ; introduction into present war, 71 ; in- demnity paid by, 72 ; occu- pation of, by Germany as security of indemnity, 72 ; Capitulations with Turkey, 73> 76 ; 79 ; intervened be- tween Greece and Turkey, 75 i protector of Roman CathoUcs in Turkey, 76 ; in- tervened in aid of Syria, 78 ; intervention of, in Turkish afiairs, prevented, 78 ; 80 ; protested against Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, 81 ; 82 ; and Treaty of Berlin, 90 ; favoured Mexican expedition and abandoned Maximilian, 103 ; remonstrated with Japan, 104 ; spheres of in- fluence in Siam, 108, rog ; 108 ; recognised Protecto- rate of Zanzibar, 1 1 1 ; recog- nised British interests in Egypt, 1 1 1 ; and Agadir in- cident, III ; laws of, as to capture at sea, 124, 125, 170 ; 127 ; 134 ; dispute with U.S.A., 135 ; Treaty of Peace and Commerce with U.S.A., 135 ; 141 ; a chain of Bufier States between, and Ger- igS Index many, 143 ; 147 ; compensa- tion for injuries in present war, 148, 149 ; 154 ; possible Protectorates by, in future peace, 155, 160 ; 162 ; 173 ; 175; 178 France, Colonies of, 7, 17, 23, 24. 30. 31. 42, 43 Franche Comte, 15, 16 ; ces- sion and retrocession of, 20 Franco-German War {1870- 1871), 19 ; 38, 40, 51 ; neu- trality of Belgium and Lux- emburg respected in, 51, 67 ; 62 ; 65 ; 67 ; 69 ; the King of Prussia in command of South German troops in, 69 ; 70 ; the aftermath of, 70 ; 71 ; 84 ; 118 ; 178, 183 Frankfort, Diet of, estab- lished, 37; espoused the cause of Duke of Augustenburg, 39 ; ' Federal Execution ' decreed by, 39 Frankfort, City annexed by Prussia, 65 Frankfort, Treaty of (1871), provisions of, 70-72 ; a cause of present war, 70 ; 96 ; 145 ; 183 Frederick II., King of Prussia, II ; successes of, 36 ; treat- ment of Saxony, 143 Frederick VII. of IJenmark, 39 French Flanders, 15 French Republic, The, and Louisiana, 30 ; Declaration of Government of, 125 ; suggested Protectorate by, 154. 155 French Revolution, Wars of, 14. 33 ; 15 ; 25 ; National Debt a factor in, 31 ; 32 ; conquests of, 35 ; of 1830, 60 Frontiers, Defensive, 147, 149, 151 ; rectification of, 71 ; 96, 105 Galicia, Eastern, 57, 61 ; people of, 57, 156 ; religion, 57 Galicia, Western, 58 Garibaldi, occupied Naples and Sicily, 63 ; birthplace of, 64 ; Liberator of Southern Italy, 64 Gas, Prohibition of projectiles containing, 117, 118 Geneva, Congresses of. Laws passed by, 9, 117, 118, 119 Geneva, Conventions of, 117; breach of rules of, 119 ; en- forcement of rules of, 120 ; acts forbidden by, should be War Crimes, 166, 167 ; 171 Geneva, Republic of, and Con- gress of Vienna, 41 ; 108 Genoa, Republic of, 16; added to Kingdom of Sardinia, 45 ; citizens of, 45 George of Greece, Prince, High Commissioner of Crete, 97 German Colonies, in the Pacific, 106, 148, 153 ; in Africa, 105, 154, 155 ; treatment of natives in, 154 ; future of, 148, 154, 155 German Confederation, estab- lished, 36, 37 ; Federal Fortresses of, 37, 67 ; Diet at Frankfort, 37 ; defects and utility of, 37, 38 ; history of, 38 ; States form- ing part of, 37-39 ; dissolu- tion of, 38, 40, 41, 66 ; 40 ; 41 ; 61 ; 67 German Empire {1871) {See also Modem Germany), formation of, 40, 65, 69 ; States included in, 40, 41 ; King of Prussia proclaimed German Emperor, 69 ; sug- gested forcible dissolution of, 158 ; possible future of, 158, 159 German States, in Peace of Index 199 Westphalia (1648), 12, 13, 19; supported Elector Palatine, 18 ; annexed to Prussia, 40 ; changes of territory between, 41 Germanic law of inheritance, 38. 39 Germans, Evacuation of in- vaded countries by, 148 ; ejected from China, 148 ; outrages committed by, in Belgium and France, 126,149, 165 ; cruelty of, to natives in the Colonies, 154 ; war crimes committed by, 126, 149, 162, 163, 165 ; punish- ment to be inflicted on, whether high or low degree, 163 Germany, 16 ; in 1618, 16 ; Feudatory Princes of, 16, 22, 26, 33, 36 ; Protestant States of, 18 ; Invasion of, by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, 18 ; and Treaty of Westphalia, 19 ; 19 ; 25 ; War with France, 19, 38, 40, 51, 62, 65, 67, 69-71, 84, 118, 178 ; hegemony oi, at close of Seven Years' War, 30 ; Secularization of eccle- siastical Principalities in, 33 ; mediatization of minor sove- reigns in, 33 ; conquests of Napoleon in, 35 ; extent of Confederation of the Rhine in, 35 ; 37 ; Sovereigns of, and German Confederation, 38 ; interests of, in Schles- wig, 39 ; re-making of. Chap. IV., passim, 62, 65 sqq.; 178. (See also German Con- federation, German States, North German Confedera- tion, Southern States of) Germany, Modern (See also German Empire), estab- lished, 40, 65 ; extent of. 40 ; acquired Alsace-Lor- raine, 40, 65, 70 ; a new Baltic Power, 49 ; Chancel- lor of, and the ' scrap of paper,' 51 ; disregard of neutrality in present war, 51, 67, no, 142, 147; wan- ton breaches of treaty by, 67 ; and Dutch Limburg, 68 ; and Treaty of Frankfort, 70, 71 ; desire to crush France, 70 ; 71 ; and Treaty of Berlin (1878), 90 ; friendship with Turkey, 90, 161 ; remon- strated with Japan, 104 ; African Colonies in coming peace, 105, 154, 155 ; lost territory leased from China, 106, 148 ; Convention with Great Britain (1890), 108, no; Heligoland acquired, no, 152 ; and aggression at Agadir, in; and Conference of Brussels, 118; maritime outrages of, 127, 171 ; 127 ; construction put by, on Declaration of London, 130 ; 134 ; War Stafi of, and Switzerland, 142 ; chain of Buffer States Ijetween, and France, 143 ; indemnity to be paid by, in coming peace, 146 ; 147; 148; 149; 151; and future of Heligoland, 152 ; power of, over subject races, 155 ; future of Polish pro- vinces of, 156 ; aggressive power of, to be destroyed, 158 ; 159 ; no dominion from Berlin to Bagdad for, 161 ; 165 ; 171 Ghent, Treaty of (1814), Stipu- lations as to Indian tribes and the Slave Trade, 10 1, 181 Gladstone, Mr., Prime Minister, 51 Good Hope, Cape of, belonged to the Dutch, 17 200 Index Gorz, in the coming Treaty, 150 Granville, Earl, Foreign Secre- tary, 51, 136 Great Britain, and Hanoverian Succession, 5, 29, 38 ; bound- ary disputes in North America, 7, 31, 100 ; mediat- ing Power, II, 39 ; 12 ; 19 ; 22 ; 23 ; and fortifications of Dunkirk, 23, 24, 31 ; granted fishing rights to France, 24 ; 25 ; assented to Pragmatic Sanction, 27 ; 29 ; in War of Austrian Succession, 29 ; and Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 28, 29, 153 ; and Treaty of Paris (1763), 30 ; and Treaty of Versailles (1783), 31, 100, loi ; granted Fishing Rights to the U.S.A. (and arbitra- tions concerning them), 31, 10 1 ; 31 ; acquired Malta and Heligoland, 42, no, 152 ; Protectorate of Ionian Is- lands, 43, 44, 96, 98, 99 ; Treaty with France, Russia and Denmark (1863), 44 ; Treaty with Sweden (1855), 48 ; Convention with France and Russia (1856), 48, 49 ; Treaties with North German Confederation and France (1870), 51 ; protested against treatment of Poles, 60, 61 ; alliance with France and Sardinia in Crimean War, 62, 124 ; Entente be- tween, and France, 70 ; introduction into present war, 71 ; Capitulations with Turkey, 73 ; established Greece as a separate State, 75, 96, 98, 99 ; 80 ; party to Treaty of Constantinople, 80, 81 ; recognised ancient rule of Ottoman Empire, 81 ; party to Convention of London (1840), 81, 82 ; presents Memorandum to Russia, 87 ; 88 ; Convention and Treaty with Turkey (1878), 89, 90, 133 ; acquisition of Cyprus, 89 ; present relations with Turkey, an irony of fate, 89 ; war with U.S.A. (1812), 100, loi, 177 ; Treaty of Ghent, loi ; Venezuela and, 103 ; Alliance with Japan (1905), 108 ; Treaty with Germany, 108, no, 152 ; recognised spheres of in- fluence in Slam and Persia, 108 ; recognised interests of Japan in Corea, 109 ; protectorate over Zanzibar recognised, no ; ceded Heli- goland, no, 152 ; recognised French interests in Morocco, in ; Treaty with States- General (1667), 115 ; 118 ; rule of, for capture of private property at sea, 124-126, 131, 169, 170 ; Treaty of Commerce with France, 124 ; issued Declaration (1915) as to reprisal for German sub- marine blockade, 125 ; 127 ; Conference and Declaration of London, 127-130 ; pro- tested against Russians sink- ing British ships in Russo- Japanese War, 128, 129, 131, 171 ; casus fcederis between, and States-General, 133-134 ; assumed victory of, in pre- sent war, 141 ; and Balance of Power, 143, 144 ; 144 ; possessions of, have become a Confederation, 144 ; 148 ; sacrifices of, in present war, 151 ; chief compensa- tion of, 152 ; suggested Protectorate or annexation of German Colonies, 155 , Index 201 suggested retention of con- quests from Turkey, i6o ; and Russia, i6o ; 173 ; 174 ; 177 Great Britain, Colonies of (See Colonies) Great Britain, King of, 15, 18, 30, 38 Great Lakes of North America, 159 Greece, 43 ; Ionian Islands united to, 44, 96, 98, 99 ; Dotation to King of, 44, 99 ; revolt in, 75 ; applied for intervention of Great Powers, 75 ; established as separate State, 75 ; guaranteed by Great Britain, France and Russia, 75, 96 ; 90 ; provi- sions concerning, in Treaty of Berlin, 92, 96, 97 ; Protocol of 1830, as to, 96, 144 ; rectification of frontier, 96 ; kingdom refused by Leopold, 96 ; war with Turkey (1907), 97 ; enlargement of, 97 ; joins Balkan League, 98 ; war with Turkey (1912), 98 ; joins in Balkan Partition War (1913), 98 ; gains of, in Treaty of Bucharest, 98 ; defensive alliance with Serbia, 98 ; refused to re- cognise casus foederis in present war, 98, 134 ; com- pelled to remain neutral, 99 ; 99 ; and Islands in future peace, 161 Greece, Otho of Bavaria, first King of, 75 Greece, Constantino, King of, abdication of, 99 Greek nationalities, 99 ; claims as to boundary, 145 Greeks, Revolt of the, 75 ; Islands inhabited by, 161 Grenada, ceded to Great Britain, 43 Grenadines, ceded to Great Britain, 43 Grey, Sir Edward, Foreign Sec- retary, 128, 129 Grison League, 41 Guadaloupe, cession and retro- cession of, 43 Guadaloupe Hidalgo, Treaty of, between U.S.A. and Mexico (1848), 101, 117, 182 Guam, ceded by Spain to U.S.A., 102 Guarantee, 5, 6 ; Treaties of, 5, 29, 67, 75, 86 ; of Prag- matic Sanction, 27-29 ; futil- ity of, 29, 145 ; in Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 29 ; in Treaty of Vienna, 41 ; of neutrality of Switzerland, 41 ; of Protectorate of Ionian Islands, 44 ; of neutrality of Belgium, 51 ; of neutral- ity of Luxemburg, 67 ; of independence of Greece, 75 ; to Ottoman Empire, 77 ; individual and collective (guarantees), 78, 86 ; of Moldavia and Wallachia, 85 ; Japan occupied Wei-hai-Wei, as material, from China, 105 ; fulfilment of condi- tions of future peace to be secured by material, 164 Guarantors, Neutrals as, 11 ; duties of, 29 Guatemala, Treaty with U.S.A. (1849), 117, 182 Guizot, and the Spanish Suc- cession, 22 Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, invaded Germany, 18; death at Battle of Liitzen, 18 Hague, The, Triple Alliance at (1717), 23 Hague, Tribunal at, 103, 176 202 Index Hague Conferences, vague- ness of language in Conven- tions of, 7, 119; laws of war passed by, 9, 119, 120 ; Breaches of rules made by, should constitute War Crimes, 167 Hague Conference of 1907, 117, 118, 119; Conventions of, 1 1 7-1 19, 127 ; British delegates at, 128 ; proposed International Prize Court, 127 ; 129 Hague Conference of 1899, 118 ; three Declarations of, 118 ; and maritime warfare, 118; Conventions of , 118 Halland, ceded to Denmark, 54 Hamburg, 152 Hanover, King of, 38 ; received territory from Russia, 41 ; taken by Prussia, 66 Hanoverian Dynasty, 29 ; Succession, 5, 38 Hanse Towns, Importance of the, 53 Hapsburg, The House of, 45 Haute Savoie, Department of, 20 Heligoland, acquired by Great Britain, 42, 152 ; ceded to Germany, 110 ; future of, 152 Helvetic Body, Neutrality of, recognised, 41 Herzegovina {See Bosnia- Herzegovina), Reforms in, 87 ; occupied and annexed by Austria, 93 Hesse, Electorate of, 66 Hesse-Darmstadt, 66 Holland, United Provinces of (See also Low Countries,Neth- erlands, and States-General), established their indepen- dence of Spain, 16 ; seized by France, 35, 42 ; insur- rection in, 49 ; under Sovereignty of House of Orange, 49 ; rights of people of, 50 ; union with Belgium, 50, 53 ; Belgium revolted from, 50, 60 ; continued war with Belgium, 50, 51, 147 ; 52 ; and the Scheldt, 20, 51-53. 147 ; griev- ances of Emperor Joseph II. against, 53; Dutch Lim- burg annexed to, 68 ; Barrier Treaties helpful to, 143 Holland, King of, also Grand Duke of Luxemburg, and Duke of Limburg, 38, 148 Holstein, Grand Duke of, 38 ; Duchy of, 38 ; peculiar posi- tion of, 39 ; invasion by Austria and Prussia, 39 ; ceded to Austria and Prussia, 40 ; abandoned by Austria, 66. [See also Schleswig-Holstein) Holy Alliance, The, 4, 46 Holy Places, The, Rights of France in, 73, 76, 96 ; visits to, 73, 74 ; Russians visit- ing, 74 ; Latin and Greek Christians worshipping in, 76 ; disputes concerning, led to Crimean War, 76 Holy Roman Empire. (See Empire) Hospodars of Moldavia and Wallachia, 75, 86 Hubertsburg, Treaty of (1763), 30, ,31, 180 ' Hundred Days,' The, 36 Hungary (See also Austria- Hungary), II ; conquests of the Turk in, 16, 17, 74 ; 37 ; no part of German Conifedera- tion, 38 Illyrian Provinces, added to France, 35 Imperial Tribunals, 36 Indemnity, 46 ; enforced upon and paid by France, 72 ; Index 203 paid by Ferdinand, King of Bulgaria, 92 ; paid by Greece to Turkey, 97 ; pro- vision concerning, in Treaty of Paris (1898), 103 ; from Venezuela, preferential credi- tors in, 103 ; from China to Japan, 104 ; for breaches of laws of war, 114 ; in coming Treaty of Peace, 146, 149, 151 ; enemies' inability to pay in full, 146 ; neces- sity of occupation of enemy States until payment of, is completed, 164 India, Freedom of commerce with, 53 ; consideration of, in coming peace, 152 Indian Tribes, The, loi Ingria, ceded to Russia, 55 Insurrections, in Bohemia, 18, 157 ; in Catalonia, 18 ; in Italy, 46 ; in Holland, Zee- land, and Southern Nether- lands, 49 ; in Poland, 60 ; in Greece, 75 ; in Bosnia and Bulgaria, 87 ; in Crete, 97 International Arbitration Treaties, 176 International Congress, 119, 164, 169 International Convention, 112, 168, 169 International Law, supported by Balance of Power, 13 ; an unquestionable proposi- tion of, 121 ; effective block- ade a principle of, 125 ; rules of, 127, 128, 167, 171 ; destruction of neutral vessels an offence against, 166 ; difficulty for providing a sanction in, 113, 167 International Law Association, 126 International Prize Court, 127 Investment of a garrisoned town, 170 Ionian Islands, belonged to Venice, 17, 43 ; under Pro- tectorate of Great Britain, 6, 43, 44 ; union of, with Greece, 44, 96, 98, 99 ; posi- tion in present war, 142 Isonzo, The, in present war, 151 Istria, in coming peace, 150 ; Southern Slavs of, 156 Italia Irredenta, extent of, 64 Italian League, The, 46 Italians, The, enter Roman territory, 65 ; liberation of, from foreign domination, 149; 150 Italy in 1618, 16 ; 25 ; 33 ; and Treaty of Campo Fonnio, 33 ; kingdom of, created, 34, 64 ; 35 ; 'a geographical ex- pression,' 34, 46 ; 38 ; and Congress of Vienna, 44, 144 ; Napoleonic Kingdom of, 44 ; revolt of, 46 ; the making of. Chap. IV., 62-65 ; Confedera- tion of, 63 ; throne of, 64 ; 64 ; Florence, capital of, 64 ; an ally of Prussia, 1866, 65 ; restoration of Venice to, 45, 46, 65 ; Rome added to, 65 ; acquired Tripoli, 90 ; Triple Alliance, 134; casus foederis, 134 ; rearrangement of, 145 ; claims of, after present war, 149, 150, 151 ; frontiers of, 150, 151 ; and the Trentino, 150 ; and Greek islands in future peace, 161 Italy, Northern, a Napoleonic conquest, 35 ; a victim of division, 44 ; North Italian unity, 62, 63 ; Napoleon III. and Confederation of, 63 Italy, Southern, separate king- dom for, 44 James I. of England, 15, 38 Japan, and the Treaty of 204 Index Shimonoseki, 8, 104 ; Treaty of Portsmouth with Russia, II, 105 sqq. ; Military opera- tions and Treaty with U.S.A. (1854), 100 ; territory acquired in China, 104 ; received protest from Ger- many, France and Russia, 104 ; war with Russia, 104, 105 ; advantages gained in Russian war, 106 ; rules for populations of acquired territory, 106 ; takes part in present war, 106, 148 ; recognition of interests of, in Corea, 107, 109 ; Treaty of alliance with Great Britain, 108 ; annexed Corea, 109 ; 145 ; possible desires as to future treaty, 148, 153 Japanese, The, 105, 106, 108 ; Government in Corea, 107 Jerusalem, Holy Places at, 73 Jews in Roumania, Protection of the, 5, 95 Joseph I., The Emperor, 27 Joseph II., The Emperor, 53 Juarez, President of Mexico, 103 Jura, department of, 20 Kainardji, Treaty of (1774), 74, 76, 180 Kennedy, The late Lord Justice, and rules of capture at sea, 126 Kieff, Cessions and retrocessions of. 54. 55 Kilia Mouth of the Danube, 77 Kiwerowa Hoska, Treaty of, had a fixed term, 132, 179 Kurds, Cruelties of, to be controlled, 95 Ladrone Islands, The, 102 Lancaster, Duchy of, 39 Lapland, Treaty concerning, 48 Law of nations, 4, 84, 136, 164 Laws of War, 9 ; Chapter VII., passim ; enforcement of, in coming peace, 9, 10, 120, 165, 167 sqq. ; Classes of, and sub-divisions of classes of, 112 Between belligerents, 113 sqq., 167, 171; defects of, 113 ; punishment of in- dividuals responsible for breaches of, 67, 113, 114, 168 ; concerning merchant vessels of, 115, 116; un- written, 112, 114, 115 ; on land and sea, 114; framed by friendly States regulating mutual conduct should war arise between them, 115 ; Conference on, at Brussels, 117. Between belligerents and neutrals, 120 sqq., 167- 171 ; jurisprudence on, 120 ; in maritime warfare, 120 sqq. {See Maritime War- fare) ; concerning block- ade, 120, 121, 124, 125 ; Concerning contraband, 120, 121, 122 ; concerning cap- ture of private property at sea, 120, 122 sqq., 169, 170 ; as to protection by convoy, 120 ; as to right of visit and search, 120 ; as to con- fiscation {See Confiscation) ; concerning trade between, 115, 121 sqq.; Declaration of Paris and, 124, 125, 170 ; Rules of International Law, 121 ; 125, 127, 128, 167, 171 ; Declaration of London and, 127-130. Improvement and Amendment of , 142, 165; as to treatment of non-com- batants, 130, 165 ; sinking belligerent merchant vessels without warning, and provid- ing for safety of persons Index 205 thereon, 130, 166 ; destruc- tion of neutral vessels, 129, 130, 166 ; orders to commit outrages by land or sea, 162, 163, 166 ; the plea of acting under orders, 163, 167. For regulation of future war, 164 ; outrages committed by Ger- many and her Allies contrary to, 165 ; the old rule of war as to spies, 167 ; diffi- culty of providing a sanction to enforce, 113, 167; future form of sanction proposed by the writer, 167-172 Laybach, The Congress of, 4 League of Peace, 4 Lebanon, The, 160 Leopold I., refused throne of Greece, 96 Leopold II., took possession of Congo State, 109, no Letters of marque, 124 Levant, Pacification of the, 75, 82 Liechenstein, Principality of, 40, 66 lAhge, Bishopric of, 50 ; out- rages committed by Germans in, 165 Limburg, Dukes of, 38 ; not in North German Confedera- tion, 40, 66 ; neutrality of, 67 ; Dutch, 68 Lithuania, Grand Duchy of, 17 ; cession of, 32, 54, 58 ; in coming peace, 61 ; 155 Livonia, Northern, acquired by Sweden, 54, 55 Livonia, Southern, Cession of, 54- 55 Lloyd George, Mr., 164 Lodomeria, given to Austria, 58 Lombardy, ceded to France for Sardinia, 63, 145 London, Treaty of (1831), 50, 181 ; (1867), 67, 182 ; (1832), 75, 96, 181 ; (1871), 84, 183 London, Convention of (1840), 81, 82, 182 London, Conference of (1909), 127, 129, 184 ; (1871), 136, 183 London, Declaration of (1909), 127-130, 184 Lorraine, 15 ; invaded by France, 18 ; Bishoprics in, 19, 22 ; Enclaves in, 22 ; boundaries of, 22, 149 ; Duke of, 22, 26 ; ceded to Stanislas Lesczinski, 26 ; House of, 26 ; ceded to Germany, 40, 69, 70; people of, 70, 71, 72, 148, 149; in coming peace, 148, 149 Loti, Pierre, The novels of, 25 Louis XIV., 7 ; to marry the Infanta of Spain, 21, 22 ; grandsons of, 22 ; made new harbour at Mardick, 23 ; and Dunkirk, 23 Louis XV., 26 ; assents to Prag- matic Sanction, 27 Louis Philippe, Government of, 22 Louisburg, Retrocession of, to France, 28, 153 Louisiana, cessions and retro- cessions of, 30 ; population of, unconsidered, 30 Low Countries, The ' cockpit of Europe,' 21 ; United Provinces of, 50 Lucca, Duchy of, 26, 45, 63 Lucca, Duke of, 46, 63 Lutherans, The, 47, 55, 56 Liitzen, Battle of, 18 Luxemburg, Grand Duke of, 38 Luxemburg, excluded from German Empire (1871), 40 ; 51 ; outside North German Confederation, 66 ; Federa Fortress in German Confede 206 Index ration, 67.; within the Zollverein, 66-67 ; neutrality of, guaranteed, 67 ; and Franco-German war, 67 ; in present war, 67, 142 ; sug- gested union with Belgium, 68, 147 ; a Buffer State, 143 ; the people of, in coming peace, 147 Macedonia, 90 ; Christians in, 96 Magyars, The, 158 Main, The river, 66 Malta, acquired by Great Britain, 42 Manchuria, Russo-Japanese war fought in, 106 ; Chinese territory, 106 ; to be devel- oped by China, 106 ; rail- ways in, 107 Mardick, New harbour built at, 23 Maria Theresa, 11; 26; husband of, 26 ; League against, 28 ; Sovereign of Austria-Hungary, 37 Marie Galante, restored to France, 43 Maritime Warfare, Safety of persons on captured vessels in, 114, 129, 130, 166 ; 118; rules for, made at Gen- eva Convention, and Hague Conference, 11 7-1 19 ; laws as to belligerents in, 1 18-120 ; laws as to belligerents and neutrals in, 120 sqq., 170 ; blockade, 120, 121 ; contra- band, 120, 122, 127, 128, 169 ; capture of private property at sea in, 120, 122 sqq., 169, 170 ; right to visit and search vessels, 120; pro- tection by convoy, 120 ; shipping munitions of war, 121, 122 ; unneutral actions in, 121 ; doctrine of free goods, free ships, 122, 123 ; Great Britain's rule as to seizure of property at sea, 124, 126, 131, 169, 170; French rule as to seizure, 124, 170 ; confiscation of goods (See Confiscation) ; Germany and Austria in, 125, 127, 131, 171 ; validity of capture, 129 ; sinking of ships in, 129, 130, 166 Marmora, Sea of, passage through, 159 ; shores of, 161 Maronites, The, 78 Martinique, restored to France, 43 Maurice of Nassau, 52 Mauritius, ceded to Great Britain, 43 Maximilian, Emperor, 103 Maxims of Prudence, to be observed in treaty-making, 3-6, 9 ; an example of the wisdom of compliance with first, 20 ; non-compliance with, 23, 24, 31, 78, 84 Mecca, Sultan of, 159 Mediatization of Minor Sove- reigns of Germany, 33 Mediterranean, Balkan States and outlet to, 160 Meenan, Basin of, 109 Mehemet Ali, 82 Mekong, Basin of, 109 Merchant vessels. Laws, con- cerning in time of war. Chap. VII., 120 sqq., 166, 169, 170 Metternich, Italy, ' a geo- graphical expression,' 46 Metz, Bishopric of, 19, 22 Mexico, under Spanish rule, 18 ; at war with the United States, 100, loi ; Treaties with U.S.A. (1848), loi, 117; (1853), loi; (1884), 10 1 ; wars with European Index 207 powers, 103 ; Maximilian's Expedition to, 103 ; Treaty with U.S.A. (1831), 117 Milan, Decree of, 121 Milanese, The, 16, 45 ; defeat of Austria in, 63 ; plan of Napoleon for, 63 ; 64 Military Hospitals, neutrality of, 117 Minorca, Island of, restored to Spain, 30, 31 Mississippi, Navigation of, 31 Mitrovitza, 93 Modena, Duchy of, 26, 45, 63 ; Duke of, 43, 46 Mohammedan population of Bosnia-Herzegovina, 93 Moldavia (See also Rou- mania). Principality of, 74 ; conquered by Russia, 75 ; placed under suzerainty of the Porte, 75, 85 ; Hospodars to be elective, 75 ; quasi- protectorate over, by Russia, 76 ; Bessarabia added to, 77 ; position regulated by Great Powers, 85 ; a sepa- rate principality, 86 ; union with Wallachia, 86; Prince Cousa, Hospodar of, 86; Prince Charles of Hohen- zoUern, Hospodar of, 86 Monaco, 108 Monroe Doctrine, The, 172 Montenegro, Constitution of, 91, 94 ; 93 ; Independence recognised, 94 ; prevention of union with Serbia, 94 ; joins Balkan League, 98 ; war with Turkey, 98 ; 99 ; compensation for suffering and loss in present war, 146 ; claim on indemnity from Germany, 146 ; in sug- gested Confederacy, 157 Montserrat, ceded to Great Britain, 43 Moravia, Czecho-SIavs of, 156 Morea, The, belonged to Venice, 17 Morocco, Great Britain recog- nised French interests in, 111 ; General Treaty as to, III Moscow, Treaty of (1686), 55, 55 ; 179 Mount Athos, Monks of, 96 Munitions of War, carried by neutral ships, 121, 122 Miinster, Treaty of, 1648, vagueness of language in, 7 ; importance of, 13 ; 53 ; 179 Muscovy, Grand Duke of, 12 Naples, 16 ; 35 ; Misgovernment by the Bourbons, 46 ; King of, promises Constitution to, 46 ; occupied by Garibaldi, 63 Napoleon I., Treaties dictated by. 6, 15, 33. 34 ; wars of, 33, no. III, 152 ; defeat of, 34 ; conquests of, 35 ; brother-in- law of. King of Naples, 35 ; formed Confederation of the Rhine, 30, 35, 37 ; brother of. King of Spain and Portugal (Joseph Bonaparte), 35 ; reverse of, in Spain and Russia, 36 ; abdication, 36 ; in Elba, 36, 162 ; escape from Elba, and the Hundred Days, 36 ; final defeat, 36 ; 44 ; 45 ; 46 ; and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, 58 ; issued Decrees of Milan and Berlin, 121 ; punished as a ' dis- turber of the peace of Europe,' 162 Napoleon HI., Nice and Savoy ceded to, 42, 64 ; ally of Sardinia, 62, 63 ; plans of, for Italy, 63 ; claims pay- ment for help, 64 ; warned by Lord RusseU, 65 ; designs 208 Index on Luxemburg, 66 ; en- couraged and abandoned Expedition to Mexico, 103 Nassau, Maurice of, 52 ; taken by Prussia, 66 Neapolitan people, threatened by the Holy Alliance, 46 Nepaul, 108 Netherlands, The {See also Hol- land, States General, Low Country ) ; Independence of United Provinces estab- lished, 16, 20 ; 18 ; failure of Congress of Vienna as to, 49 ; formation of Kingdom of, 50 ; King of, 50, 148 ; Treaty with Great Powers (1839), 51, 53 ; right to levy toll for West Scheldt, 52 ; recognised neutrality of Luxemburg, 67 ; and Treaty respecting Morocco, 1 1 1 Netherlands, Southern, joined in insurrection, 49 Netherlands, Austrian. (See Austrian Netherlands) Netherlands, Spanish. (See Spanish Netherlands) Neufchatel, subject to Prussia, Neutral States, Mediation of, in making peace, 10, 11, 85 ; as guarantors of treaties, 10, II ; and Congress Treaties, 11 ; laws of war between, and belligerents, 112, 120 sqq., 166, 167 ; 113 ; [submit to blockade, 120 ; trade of, with bellig'erents, 120, 121 ; allowed to export munitions of war, 121, 122 ; unneutral actions of, 121, 122 ; capture of ships and cargoes belonging to, 122 sqq. ; and contraband {See Contraband) ; confiscation of goods of {See Confiscation) ; rights of, disregarded by Germany and Austria, 127 ; Hague Conference and rights of, 127 ; belligerent vessels entering ports of, 127 ; Declaration of London and, 128-131, 166; 130; enforcement of laws con- cerning, 165-167 ; penalties for breaches of laws con- cerning, 168, 169 ; and coming Treaty of Peace, 168 ; to have authority for remon- strance and acts of retorsion, 168; actions of reprisal by, 169 ; 171 ; 172 ; possible efiect of early intervention by, in present war, 172 ; lack of solidarity between, 172 Neutrality, Recognition of, of Switzerland, 41 ; of Belgium, 51 ; of Cracow, 59 ; of Luxemburg, 67 ; of Lim- burg, 68 ; of Black Sea, 83, 84 ; of Congo State, 109, no; of ambulances, hos- pitals, &c., 117 Neutralization of States, Fu- tility of, 68, 142 Nevis, ceded to Great Britain, 43 New Brunswick, dispute as to, 7 New England, 18 Newfoundland, ceded by France to England, 23 ; fishing rights granted to France, 24 New Granada, Treaty with U.S.A. (1846), 117, 132, 182 New Hampshire, U.S.A., 11 New Mexico, ceded to U.S.A., lOI New Zealand, Desire as to future treaty, 148, 153 Nice, ceded to France, 42, 64 ; birthplace of Garibaldi, 64 ; 108 Niger, The, 109 Index 209 J^imeguen, Treaty of, 1678, 7, 21, 179 l^on-combatants of belligerent countries, treatment by land and sea, 114, 129, 130, 166 ; resistance of, in a sudden invasion, 118; outrages on, in Belgium, 165 ^orth German Confederation, formation of, 40, 66; Treaties of Alliance with South German States, 40, 69 ; Treaty between Great Britain and, 51 ; at war with France, 40, 65, 69 ; Saxony joined, 66 ; bound- ary of, 66 ; States left out- side, 66 !Jorth Italian Confederation, 62, 63 !^orway, United to Denmark, 17, 47 ; Congress of Vienna and, 46 sqq. ; union with Sweden, 47 ; bishops in, 47 ; formed independent State, 48. 145 STorwegians, Comparison of, with the Swedes, 47 ; origin, religion and language of, 47 ^ova Scotia (See also Acadia), ceded to England, 23 ; 25 ; 43 ^ovi-bazar, Sandjak of, 93, 94 vfystadt. Peace of (1721), 55, 180 Dbligations of States party to Treaties, 135-137 ; London Protocol concern- ing, 84, 136 ; maxim of the Civil Law applied to, 137 ; importance of ample notice of desire of release, 138, 140 ; evil of breaking, without warning, 138 ; dispelled by change of circumstances, 134, 137-139 Dliva, Treaty of (1660), 14, 15 ; terminated Polish war of Succession, 17 ; 53-55 ; 57 ; 179 Orange, House of, 49 Orange-Nassau, Prince of, 50 Orthodox Church, 56, 57, 76, 93 Osnabriick, Treaty of, 12, 13, 179 Otho, King of Greece, 75 Ottoman Empire, Independence of, 77 ; ancient rule of, recog- nised, 81 ; administration of, 93 ; Plenipotentiaries of, 93 ; foreign to Western civilisa- tion, 159 ; whether to be turned out of Europe, 159, 160 Pacific, The, Former German colonies in, 106, 148, 153 Palmerston, Lord, 154 Panama, Isthmus of, 132 Papal States, 16 ; 25 ; restored to Pope, 44 ; Napoleon's plan for, 63 ; rose in revolt, 63 ; 64 ; added to Italy, 46, 65 Paris, Treaty of (1763), pro- visions as to fortifications of Dunkirk, 23 ; as to fish- ing rights of France, 24 ; recognised conquest of Can- ada, 30 ; effected a callous transfer of population, 30 ; an enduring treaty, 31 ; 43 ; 180 Paris, Treaty of (May 30, 1814), 49. 181 Paris, Treaty of (Nov. 5, 1815), 44, 181 Paris, Treaty of (Nov. 20, 1815), 41, 181 Paris, Treaty of (1856), a Congress treaty, 12, 77 ; Convention annexed to, as to Aland Islands, 48, 49, 70 ; Italian question in. 210 Index 62 ; provisions of, 77 sqq. ; concluded Crimean War, 77 ; . defects of, 78 ; useful pro- visions, 79 ; confirmed Con- vention of London (1840), 81, 82 ; 82 ; and neutrality of Black Sea, 83, 84 ; ad- vocated mediation in inter- national quarrels, 85, 175 ; 96 ; 99 ; 182 Paris, Treaty of (1898), closed Spanish- American War, 11, 102 ; useful provisions in, 102 ; supplementary Treaty of Peace to, 103 ; 184 Paris, Convention of (July 11, 1814), 50, 181 Paris, Congress of (1856), 12, 62, 175, 182 Paris, Conference at (1859), 86, 182 Paris, Declaration of (1856), 124 ; articles of, 124-126 ; and capture at sea, 124 sqq., 170 ; Great Britain and, 124 sqq. ; concerning partial abrogation of, 125, 126 Paris, Document signed at, ac- cepting the views of Russian Provisional Government, 155 Parma, Duchy of, 26, 45, 63 ; Duke of, 46, 63 ; Napoleon III.'s plan for, 63 Partition Treaties, The, 32, 55- 58, 180; First (1772), 32, 56, 57, 156, 180; Second (1793), 32, 57, 180; Third (1795). 32, 57, 58, 180 Partition, Balkan War of, 98, 99 Passarowitz, Treaty of {1718), duration of, fixed, 132 ; 180 Peace, The coming Treaty of, I, 3 ; must be solid, i ; no truce, I, 141 ; lasting, i, 2, 141 ; just, 2, 3, 146 ; maxims of prudence to be observed in, 3-6 ; geography and orography to be con- sidered in, 3, 7 ; restoration of Balance of Power by, 4, 143, 158 ; annexation of un- willing populations to be deprecated, 4, 145, 148, 149, 156 ; protectorates and guarantees to be avoided, 5, 145 ; and territories of Turkish Empire, 6 ; im- mediate attention to be given to release of prisoners, and special cases among them, 8, 105, 155, 161 ; laws of war and their en- forcement by, 9, 10, 120, 165-172 ; lessons from the Congress of Vienna, 35 ; States on eastern shores of Adriatic to be settled by, 45 ; the question of the Scheldt and Antwerp to be dis- cussed, 52, 53 ; Poland a difficult question in, 61 ; re- tribution for War Crimes, 67, 162, 163, 165 ; suggested union of South German States and German Austria by, 68, 158, 159; suggested union of Belgium and Luxemburg by, 68, 147 ; problem of the Dardanelles, Bosphorus and Black Sea to be solved by, 84 ; to make a final settlement of Balkan States, 99 ; useful provisions to be noted in Treaties of Paris, Shimono- seki, and Portsmouth, 102, 105, 108 ; unparalleled number of matters to be determined in, 141 ; objects of, 141, 142 ; provisions which would be useless in, 142 ; claims of States in, 142 ; neutralization not to be advocated, 142 ; reduction of miUtary power in Central Empires by, 143 ; cessions Index 211 and retrocessions to be un- encumbered, 145 ; chief security of, 145-6 ; fifteen plans of national settlement on lines of the Allies' reply to President Wilson, 146-159 ; the question of German Colonies in, 153-155 ; German Empire not to be destroyed, 158 ; further sug- gestions as to Turkey in, 160, 161 ; penalties to be imposed on rulers, who lightly enter into war, 162 ; arrangements for security of fulfilment of, 164. Amendment of laws in, as to non-combatants, sink- ing merchant vessels without warning, and treatment of passengers and crews, 165 ; as to neutral vessels in mari- time warfare, 166 ; the plea of obeying orders to be no justification for war crimes, 163, 167 ; suggested sanc- tion that might be adopted in, 167, 171 ; conduct of belligerents and neutrals in war to be considered in, 168, 169, 171 ; old English rule as to capture at sea, to be up- held, 169, 170 ; the question of contraband to be con- sidered in, 169; provisions to suppress maritime outrages in, 171. Measures to be framed for prevention of war, 9; 172 sqq.; limitation of armaments not regarded as practical, 172, 173 ; arbitrations, 173 sqq. ; pro- visions in Treaty of Paris to be considered and made compulsory, 175 ; the ap- pointment by, of tribunals of arbitration, conciliation, mediation, or advice, 177 ; the inclusion of neutral as well as belligerent States in the Peace Congress, 177 Penalties to prevent States from lightly declaring war, 2, 162 ; for wanton breaches of treaty, 67, 140, 169 ; for breaches of the laws of war, 67, 113, 114, 168, 169 ; for war crimes, 67, 162, 163, 165 Persia, spheres of influence in, 108 Peru, Treaty with U.S.A. (1836), 117, 181 Pescadores Islands, The, ceded to Japan, 104 Petrograd, 47 Philip II. of Spain, 49 Philippine Islands, ceded to U.S.A., 102, 145 Piacenza, Duchy of, 26, 45, 63 ; Duke of, 46, 63 ; Napoleon's plan for, 63 Piedmont, ruled by Count of Savoy, in 1618, 16 Poland, 5 ; Dissidents in, 5, 55, 56 ; 12 ; King of, 12, 56 ; 16 ; extent of in 1618, 17 ; religion of, 17, 55, 56 ; War of Succession with Sweden, 17 ; elective kingship, 17 ; Stanislas Lesczinski and, 26 ; kingdom of, 32, 56 ; Partition Treaties of, 32, 56-58, 156, 180 ; Congress of Vienna and, 53, 155 ; im- portance of, in seventeenth century, 53 ; suzerainty over Prussia, 53 ; possessions of, 54 ; boundary of, in 1660, 54 ; Treaties with Russia, 54, 56 ; cessions and retrocessions by. 54. 55 ; interference of Catharine II., 55, 56 ; constitution of, 56 ; extin- guished as a State, 58, 60 ; new kingdom formed under Emperor of Russia as King, 212 Index 58 ; Republic of Cracow constituted in, 58, 59 ; in- surrections in, 60 ; harsh treatment of, 60 ; future of, 61 ; 74 ; and Treaty of Carlowitz, 74 ; 132 ; 145 ; 151 ; territorial compensa- tion after present war, 154 ; restoration of kingdom of Poland promised, 155 ; ex- tension of, 155 Poland, Great, ceded to Prussia, 58 Poland, Austrian and Prussian provinces of, 38, 40, 61 Poles, The, elected Swedish heir apparent as their king, 17 ; 57 ; fought under Napoleon I., 58 ; and Con- gress of Vienna, 58, 59 ; in Austria, in coming peace, Pomerania, Swedish, 46 ; Prus- sian possessions in, 47, 57 Pope, The, Papal States restored to, 44, 63 ; and Confederation of Italy, 63 Populations, ceded. Question of, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 ; of Christians in Turkey, 5, 73 sqq., 87-89 ; 160 ; rights of, 14 ; 19 ; of Europe, 25 ; liberties of Canadians, 30 ; inhabitants of Louisiana, 30 ; Venetians not considered, 33 ; 42 ; inhabitants of Ionian Islands, 44 ; people of Northern Italy, 45, 150 ; citizens of Genoa, 45 ; Norwegians in union with Sweden, 47 ; provisions for inhabitants of Belgium and Holland, 50 ; the Poles, 58, 59, 156, 157 ; people of Nice and Savoy, 64 ; of Schles- wig, 66, 69 ; of Alsace- Lorraine, 70, 71, 72, 148, 149 ; of Moldavia and Wal- lachia, 75 ; Bosnia-Herze- govina, 87, 93, 157 ; of Balkan States, gr, 92, 94, 95, 97, 149, 150 ; of territories ceded by Spain, 102 ; of territories ceded in Chino- Japanese War, 104, 105 ; provisions in Treaty of Ports- mouth, concerning, 106, 107, 108 ; provisions in Treaty of Cession of Alaska, con- cerning, 145 ; Roumanians, 149, 150 ; population of Gorz, Camiola, and Istria, in coming peace, 150, 156, 157 ; Czecho-Slovaks in Bohemia, 157 ; protection of, to be provided in coming peace, 154, 155 ; cession of unwilling, to be avoided, 145, 148, 149, 150, 156, 157, 160 Port Arthur, leased to Russia by China, 106 ; gained by Japan, 106 ; rights of Rus- sians in, 107 Porte, The, promised to protect Christian religion, 74, 89 ; 75 ; and Treaty of Paris (1856), 77 ; injustice and cruelty of, 79 ; 80 ; 82 ; control of Danubian Princi- palities by, 85 ; Christian provinces of, 85, 86 ; 87 ; Armenian subjects of, ' 89, 95, 96, 160 ; and Bulgaria, 91 ; insincere dealings of, as to Crete, 97 ; 152 ; Asiatic subjects of, 160. (See also Turkey and Ottoman Em- pire) Porto Rico, ceded by Spain to U.S.A., 102 Portsmouth, Treaty of, 11, 105 sqq., unusual form of, 106 ; cession of territory in, 106 ; peculiarities of, 106, 107 ; useful clause in, ro8, 184 Index 213 Portugal, 16 ; settlements of, in East Indies, 17 ; revolted from Spain, 18; Joseph Bona- parte king of, 35 ; bound- ary fixed between Spain and, 43 ; party to treaty as to Morocco, III ; boundaries df, in East Africa, 148 ; claims to former German Colonies, 155 Posen, given to Prussia, 58 ; a difficult question in coming peace, 61 Powers, Foreign, 65, 81 Powers, the Great, 25, 26, 27 ; and Treaty of Aix-la- Chapelle, 28 ; recognised neutrality of Switzerland, 41 ; Treaty between (1863), 44 ; dealings with Greece, 44. 75. 96, 97 ; recognised independence of Belgium, 50 ; parties to treaties of 1839, 51, 53 ; and neutrality oflLuxemburg, 67 ; parties to Treaty of Paris {1856), 77, 82, 85 ; promised to respect inde- pendence of Ottoman Em- pire, 77, 78 ; forbidden to interfere in administration of Turkey, 78, 79 ; and Crimean War, 79 ; protest against cruelty to Christians in Turkey, 79 ; jealousy of; 79 ; and Treaty with Turkey {1841), 81, 82 ; and Convention of London(i84o), 81 ; Conventions between, and Turkey (1858), 86; Treaty with Turkey (1862), 86 ; intervened to suppress atrocities in Turkey, 87 ; met in Congress of Berlin (1878), 87 ; avowed disin- terestedness of, and results, 88 ; dealings of, with Bul- garia, 91, 92 ; parties to General Treaty as to Mo- rocco, iii; Plenipotentiaries of, 124 Pragmatic Sanction, The, 5 ; fate of, 26 ; guarantors of, 27, 28, 29 Prague, Insurrection at, 18 Prague, Treaty of {1866), 30, 40, 65, 66, 69, 70, 153, 183 ; dissolution of German Con- federation by, 66 ; useless clause in, 69 ,Presburg, Peace of (1805), 34, 181 President Wilson, Reply of allied governments to, and suggestions based thereon, concerning — Belgium, 146 ; Serbia, 146, 147 ; Monte- negro, 146 ; France, 148, 149. 155 ; Italy, 149, 150, 151 ; Luxemburg, 147 ; Roumania, 148, 149, 151 ; Portugal, 148 ; Russia, 148, 151 ; Poland, 151, 155, 156 ; ' reorganisation of Europe,' 153- 156 ; liberation of peoples, 149 ; populations subject to Turkey, 159, 160 Prevention of war, 2, 3 ; pro- visions for, 9, 142, 164 sqq. ; securities for, 3, 172 ; utility of Congress Treaties in, 109 ; failure of limitations as a, 172 ; arbitration as a, 173, sqq. Prisoners, restoration of, charged with crimes, 8, 105, 155, 161 ; humane treatment of, 105, 116; expense of, keeping, to be arranged in treaty, 108 ; ill-treatment of, 113, 114; release of, after coming peace, 161, 162 ; right of a conqueror over, 164 Privateers abolished, 124 Prize Courts, Decisions of, 120 ; International, 127 ; British, 128 214 Index Prize, Law of Great Britain, abandonment of, 124, 125 ; restoration of, advocated, 126, 169, 170 ; 127 ; 131. Of France, 124, 170 Protectorates, 5, 6 ; subtle form of, 8 ; by Great Britain over Ionian Islands, 6, 44 ; in Africa, 6, 109, 145, 154, 155 ; of Moldavia and Wal- lachia, 75, 76 ; 86 ; of Greece, 96 ; by Great Britain over Zanzibar, 110; neces- sity of, over Turkish do- minions, 145, 160, 161 ; of the Lebanon after present war, 160 Protocol, relating to abroga- tion of treaties and obliga- tions of States party to (1871), 84, 136 ; advocating mediation in international misunderstandings (1856), 85 ; 175 ; relating to Bul- garian atrocities (1877), 87 ; relating to Greece (1830), 96 Prussia, 6 ; treaty with Den- mark (1850), II, 39; 12; feudatory of Poland, 17, 53, 57 ; and Pragmatic Sanc- tion, 27 ; invaded Silesia, 28 ; at close of Austrian Succession, 29 ; and Treaty of Hubertsburg, 30 ; share in Polish Partition Treaties, 32. 33. 38, 57. 58, 156; at war with Austria (1866), 33, 40, 65, 66 ; 35 ; 37 ; joint leader of German Confedera- tion, 37 ; Diet of Frankfort, 37 ; invaded Schleswig, 39 ; war with Denmark, 40 ; and North German Confede- ration, 40 ; annexed Ger- man States, 40, 41 ; largest state in German Empire, 40 ; 44 ; coveted Swedish Pomerania, 46 ; possessions in Pomerania, 47 ; treaty with Great Britain, 51, 67, 183 ; feudatory of Sweden, 53, 54 ; holding of Elector of Brandenburg and, 57 ; kingdom of, 57 ; Great Po- land ceded to, 58 ; adminis- tration of Poles in, 58, 59 ; Cracow under protection of, 59 ; Treaty of Prague (1866), 30, 40, 65, 66, 69, 70; acquired Hanover, Hesse, Nassau, Frankfort-on-Main, 66 ; respected neutrality of Luxemburg in 1870, 66 ; party to Treaty with Austria (1879), 70 ; avoided fulfilment of Treaty of Prague, 70 ; party to Con- vention of London (1840), 81 ; treaty with U.S.A- (1799), 116, 132 ; 141 ; Polish- speaking province of, 156 Prussia, Frederick II., King of, II, 36, 143 Prussia, Kiag of (Frederick William), 27 Prussia, King of (William I.), in command of forces of Southern Germany, 69 ; pro- claimed ' German Emperor,' 69 Prussia, East, 57 Prussia, Polish, not in Ger- man Confederation, 38, Ci ; included in German Empire, 40, 61, 69 ; Grand Duchy of Warsaw formed from, 58 ; future of, 61, 156 ; deputies of in Reichstag, 61, 156 ; Prussian loss of, in coming peace, 156, 158 Prussia, West, assigned to Prussia in First Partition Treaty, 57, 156 ; German- speaking people of, 57, 156 ; future of, 156, 157 Pyrenees, The, 20 Index 215 Pyrenees, Treaty of the (1659), 20 ; valuable provisions in, 20 ; bad effects of, 20-22, 179 Ragusa, Republic of, 45, 108 Railways, 71 ; Conventions as to, 72 ; 106 ; 107 Reformation in England, The, 47 Reichstag, Protests of Polish deputies in, 61, 156 ; of deputies of Schleswig in, 153 Religion of Poland, 17, 55-57 ; Denmark, 47 ; Sweden, 47 ; Norway,47; Southern Nether- lands, 49 ; Galicia,57 ; Bosnia and Herzegovina, 93 Religion of ceded popula- tions provided for, 5, 14 ; in Treaty of Westphalia, 19 ; Treaty of Paris (1763), 30 ; Convention of Paris (18 14), 50 ; Treaty of Oliva, 55 ; Treaty of Moscow, 56 ; Capitulations, 73, 74 ; 76 ; Treaty of Carlowitz, 74 ; Treaty of Belgrade, 74 ; Treaty of Kainardji, 74 ; Treaty of Bucharest, 74 ; Treaty of Ackerman, 75 ; Treaty of Paris (1856), 78, 79, 85, 86 ; Treaty of Berlin (1878), 88, 91, 92, 94-96; Convention between Great Britain and Turkey (1878), 89 ; Treaty of Paris (1898), 102 ; Treaty of Cession of Alaska, 145 Religious Persecutions, in Bo- hemia, 18 ; in Bosnia and Bulgaria, 87 ; in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 87, 93 ; in Armenia, 89, 96, 1 60 Reprisals, 113-115, 125 ; 169 Retorsion, Acts of, 168, 171 Retribution, Necessity of, 2 ; best form of, 3 ; for breaches of Treaty, 67, 140, 169 ; for breaches of the Laws of War, 114 sqq., 168 ; exacted by U.S.A., 114 ; on rulers of aggressive State, 162 ; for wanton disturbance of the peace, 162 ; insistence on, in coming peace, 162 ; war crimes to be punished with severe, 162, 163 ; 166- 168 Rhine, Confederation of the, 30, 35. 37 Rhine, free navigation of river, 32 ; 35 ; left bank of, 65 Rivers, navigation of, con- sidered at Congress of Vienna, 32, 51, 80, 158 ; Scheldt, 20, 51. 52. 53. 147 ; Mississippi, 31 ; Rhine, 32 ; Danube, 80, 95 ; police boats and Lega- tion vessels on, 82, 83 ; Congo and Niger, 109 ; St. Lawrence, 159 ; Upper Danube, Don, and Volga a subject in the coming peace, 159 Roman Catholic religion, 17, 49, 57. 74. 93 Roman Catholics, Protection of, 55. 56. 76 Roman Jurists, 2 Rome, made a Republic, 46 ; French troops withdrawn from, 65 ; added to King- dom of Italy, 65 Rosebery, Lord, Foreign Secre- tary, 137 Rouen, International Law Association Conference at, 126 Roumania {See also Mol- davia and Wallachia), 5 ; 74 ; Bessarabia restored to Russia, 77, 88, 94 ; forma- tion of, 86 ; declared Inde- pendence, 86, 87, 94 ; be- 2l6 Index came a kingdom, 86 ; ally of Russia, 87 ; 90 ; constitu- tion of, 91 ; 95 ; joined in Balkan War of Partition, 98 ; gained Silistria and Dobrudia, 98 ; compensa- tion in coming peace, 148, 149, 150, 151, 155 ; claim of, to Transylvania and Buko- vina, 151, 156; future of, and Constantinople, 160 ; en- slavement of her men and women by Austria, 166 Roumanians, liberation of, from foreign domination, 149, 156 ; pecuniary indem- nity to, 150 Roumelia, Eastern (See also Bulgaria), 90 ; administra- tion of, 91 ; acquired by Prince of Bulgaria, 92 ; union with Bulgaria de- clared, 92, 97 ; kingdom of Bulgaria, 92 Rousillon, 15, 1 5 Russell, Lord, English Foreign Secretary, 65 Russia, mediating power in Treaty of Teschen, ir ; war with Japan, 11, 104 sqq. ; 12 ; in 1618, 17; 19; share of, in Partition Treaties of Po- land, 32, 56, 57, 58 ; Napo- leon's invasion of, 36 ; 44 ; and union of Greece with Ionian Islands, 44 ; acquired Finland, 47 ; Convention with Great Britain and France (1856), 48, 49 ; im- portance of, in seventeenth century, 53 ; abandoned Livonia, 54 ; Polish bound- ary of, 54, 58 ; Treaty with Poland, 54, 58 ; lost shore of GuU of Finland, 54 ; en- croachments on Poland, 54 ; Polish cessions and retro- cessions, 54, 55 ; territories acquired by (1721), 55; 58 ^ Cracow under protection of. 59 ; reduced Poland to mere province, 60 ; oppression of Poles, protest from Great Britain and France, 60, 61 ; alliance with France, 70 ; and protection of Christians in Turkey, 74, 76 ; inter- vened for protection of Serbia, Moldavia, and Wal- lachia, 74 ; intervened be- tween Greece and Turkey, 75 ; Moldavia and Wallachia conquered by, 75 ; 76 ; Bess- arabia ceded l3y, 77 ; logt Kilia mouth of Danube, 77 ; Bessarabia restored to, 77, 88 ; interference in Turkish affairs prevented, 78 ; the Dardanelles question, 80-82 ; Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, 81 ; Convention of London (1840), 81, 82 ; destroyed Turkish Fleet at Sinope, 82, 83, 178 ; resented provi- sions (1856) as to Black Sea, 83 ; abrogated provision of Treaty of Paris (1856), 84, 136 ; action dealt with by special Protocol, 84, 136 ; 85 ; Russo-Turkish War, 87 sqq. ; received memorandum from Great Britain, 87 ; con- cluded Peace of San Stefano, 87 ; compensation of, in Treaty of Berlin, 88 ; 88 ; 89 ; ally of Great Britain in present war, 89 ; cession to, of Asiatic provinces of Turkey, 89, 95 ; Bulgaria, proposed dependency of, 90 ; 94 ; dealings with Greece, 98 ; remonstrated with Japan, 104 ; Treaty of Portsmouth, 106 ; leased Port Arthur from China, 106 ; ceded Sakhaline to Japan, 106 ; Index 217 evacuated Chinese territory, 106 ; recognised predomin- ant interests of Japan in Corea, 107-109 ; and ex- pense of prisoners, 108 ; recognised spheres of in- fluence in Persia, 108 ; Treaty of Kiwerowa Hoska, 132 ; Treaty of Adrianople (1713), 132; 133 ; terminated freedom of port of Batoum, 137 ; 144 ; Treaty of cession of Alaska with U.S.A., 145 ; compensation in future peace, 145. 151 ; 155 ; 156; 157; and Constantinople, 160 ; and Turkish conquests, 160 ; 173 Russia, Empress of (Catharine I.), and Pragmatic Sanction, 587 Russia, Empress of (Catharine II.), and Poland, 55, 56 Russia, Black, 54 Russia, Little, 54, 55 Russia, White, 54 Russian Replublic, Provisional Government of the, statement t>y, 155 ; 160 Russians, Rights of the, in Port Arthur, 106 ; destroyed Turkish fleet at Sinope, 82, 178 ; sank English ships, 128, 129, 131, 171 Russians, Little, 56, 57 Russo-Japanese war, Cause of, 104 ; fought on Chinese territory, 106 ; English ships sunk in, 128, 129, 131, 171 Russo-Turkish War, 79, 87, 99 Ruthenians, Ruthenes, The, 56, 57, 155, 156, 157 Ryswick, Treaty of (1697), 7, 21, 179 Sadowa, Battle of, 30 St. Christopher, ceded to Great Britain, 43 St. Helena, Napoleon a captive in, 162 St. Lawrence, Navigation of river, 159 St. Petersburg, 47 St. Petersburg, Treaty of (1834), 75. 76 St. Petersburg, Declaration of, (1868), 117; acts forbidden by, should constitute war crimes, 166, 167 St. Vincent, ceded to Great Britain, 43 Sakhaline, Isle of, ceded to Japan, 106 Salic Law, 21, 38, 39 Salvador, Treaty with U.S.A. (1850), 117, 182 Salwin, Basin of, 109 Salzburg, Austrian province of, 150 Sanctions, New scheme of, 10; inefficiency of, 113 difficulty of enforcing, 113 167 ; laws of war and, 168 proposed form of, 167-8 171 ; 176 San Domingo, half of, ceded to Spain, 43 San Juan boundary dispute and arbitration, loi San Stefano, Peace of (1878), 87 ; proposal as to Bulgaria in, 90, 99, 183 Santa Lucia, Cessions and retrocessions of, 43 Sardinia, involved in Crimean War, 12, 62, 63 ; 16 ; 26 ; kingdom of, restored and Genoa added, 45 ; attacked Austrian territories, 46, 63 ; 62 ; received Lombardy, 63 ; party to Treaties of Zurich (1859), 63 ; Napoleon's plans for, 63 ; 64 ; ceded Nice and Savoy to France, 64 ; party to TreCaty of Paris (1856), 77 ; 108 2l8 Index Sardinia, Charles Albert, King of, 45, 46, 63 Sas, Canal of, 20 Savoy, Count of, i5 ; portion of, neutralised, 41, 142 ; ac- quired by France, 42, 64, 65 ; House of, succeeded to Throne of Italy, 64 Saxe-Coburg, Prince Ferdi- nand of. King of Bulgaria, 92 Saxony, Elector of, 27 ; lost territory, 41 ; befriended by Austria, 66 ; entered North German Confedera- tion, 66 ; experiences of, 143 Scania, ceded to Denmark, 54 Scheldt, Closing of the, 20 ; provisions concerning the, 51 ; freedom of navigation of, 52 ; opening of the, 53 Scheldt, Western, toll exacted for navigation of, 52 ; southern bank of, 52, 53 ; proposals as to, 52, 147 ; im- portant question for coming peace, 53, 147 Schleswig, Duchy of, 38 ; claimed byDuke of Augusten- burg, 39 ; no part of German Coiiederation, 39, 40 ; race and language of, 39 ; invaded by Prussia and Austria, 40 ; ceded to Austria and Prussia, 40 ; 40 ; Austria ceded all rights in, 66 ; suggestion as to future of Danish portion, 153 Schleswig, North, 66, 69, 145, 158 Schleswig-Holstein. (See Schles- wig and Holstein) Schutzenfest in Vienna, 68 Scotland, James VI. of, 15, 18 Secularization of Ecclesiastical Principalities in Germany, 33 Serb populations, 99, 147 Serbia, Principality of, 74 ; Turkey promised good gov- ernment for, 74, 75 ; rights of, guaranteed by Great Powers, 85 ; 86 ; declared war against Turkey, 87 ; 90 ; Constitution of , 91 ; 93 ; 94 ; recognised as separate State, 94 ; war with Bulgaria, 97 ; joined Balkan League, 98 ; war with Turkey (1912), 98 ; Partition War (1913), 98 ; gains in 1913, 98 ; alliance with Greece, 98 ; casus ■foederis on part of Greece, 98, 134 ; 99 ; com- pensation for injuries in present war, 146 ; indemnity in coming peace, 146 ; 147 ; and formation of Slav Confederation, 157 ; enslave- ment of men and women by Bulgaria, 165 ; 174 Servitudes, 5, 6 ; by Treaty of Utrecht, 23 ; by Treaty of Paris (1856), 83, 84 ; 85 ; 134 Seven Years' War, 7, 29, 31 Seychelles Islands, ceded to Great Britain, 43 Shimonoseki, Treaty of (1895), useful provisions in, 8, 105, 183 Siam, Spheres of influence in, 108, 109 Sicily, Sicilies, 16, 26, 34 ; Kingdom of, 44 ; occupied by Garibaldi, 63 Silesia, invaded and conquered by Prussia, 28, 30 ; Austrian hopes as to, 29 ; Prussian possessions in, 57 Sifistria, taken by Roumania, 98 Sinope, Turkish Fleet destroyed at, 82, 178I Slave Trade, Declaration against, 10 1 Slavonia, Kingdom of, no part Index 219 of German Confederation, 38 Slavonic population of Eastern shores of Adriatic, 45, 94 ; Countries 146 ; 151 ; 156 ; Lands in Austria-Hungary, 156; Confederation, 151, 157. 158 Slovaks, distribution of, 157 Smolensk, possessed by Poland, 54 ; restored to Russia, 54 Sophia, The Duchess, assassina- tion of, 157 Sound, The, Denmark lost shores of, 54 ; control of Denmark and Sweden over, 80 South German Confederation suggested, 68, 158, 159 ; movement towards, in 1868, 68 South German States, treaties of alliance with North German Confederation, 40, 68 ; came into German Empire (1871), 40, 68, 158, 159 ; demon- stration in favour of union, 68 ; join in Franco-German war, 69 South Germany, A new, 159 South Slavonic State, Measures to prevent formation of, 94 ; population, 94. Confederacy, 94, 151, 157 ; Austria's fear of, 94, 157. Spain, war with United States, II, 100, 102, 103 ; Treaty with States-General, 12 ; 15 ; 16 ; and Thirty Years' War, 18 ; Portugal revolted from, 18 ; party to Treaty of Pyrenees, 20 ; northern boundary fixed, 20 ; terri- tory ceded to France, 20 ; Franche Comte restored to, 20 ; laws of succession to Throne of, 21, 22 ; party to Treaty of Paris (1763), 30 ; cessions and retrocessions of Florida, 30 ; Minorca re- stored to, 31 ; 36 ; Treaty of Utrecht, fixed rule as to Crown of, 42 ; bound- ary between, and Portugal fixed, 43, 52 ; Treaty of Paris (1898) closes war with U.S.A. and, 102 ; Treaty with U.S.A. (1795), 117 ; Treaty of Peace and Amity with U.S.A. {1902), 103 ; 104 ; III ; party to treaty as to Morocco, iii ; 134 Spain, King of, and Pragmatic Sanction, 27 Spain, King of (Joseph Bona- parte), 35 Spain, Philip II. King of, 49 Spanish- American War, 11, 102 Spanish Netherlands, 16 ; 20 ; Sovereigns of, 20 ; cessions and retrocessions with France, 21 ; subjected to Barrier Treaties, 21 ; in- surrection in, 49 Spanish rule, 17, 18, 26; Colonies, 18, 30, 43; 49; inhabitants of ceded terri- tories, 102 Spanish Succession, War of, 22, 26 Spheres of influence, in Africa, 108, 109, no; in Siam, 108 ; in Persia, 108 Spies, Punishment of, 167 Stanislas Lesczinski, Lorraine ceded to, 26 States-General, as mediating power, II ; and treaty with Spain (1648), 12; 16; in Thirty Years' War, 18 ; In- dependence of, recognised, 20 ; closing of Scheldt, and, 20 ; 23 ; assent to Prag- matic Sanction, 27 ; barrier fortresses in, 49 ; 50 ; and 220 Index Treaty with Great Britain (1667), 115 ; refused aid to Great Britain, 134 ; war with Great Britain, 134 Stockholm, 48 Styria, 16 Submarine blockade, The, 125 ; warfare, 130 Sultan of Egypt, 159 Sultan of Mecca, 159 Sultan of Turkey, issued fir- man, 78 ; and the Dardanelles and Bosphorus, 81 ; and neutrality of Black Sea, 83 ; ceded Cyprus, 89 ; ap- pointed Ferdinand Prince of Bulgaria, 92 ; undertakings as to Crete, 97. (See also Porte, Turkey and Ottoman Empire) Sultan of Zanzibar, no Sweden, and Treaty of West- phalia, 12 ; in subjection to Denmark, 16 ; at war with Poland, 17 ; 17 ; 19 ; and Pragmatic Sanction, 27 ; Napoleonic Wars and, 46 ; loss of Finland, 47 ; religion of, 47 ; union with Norway, 47 ; and Congress of Vienna, 48 ; Treaty wtih Great Britain (1855), 48 ; disunion from Norway, 48 ; and the Aland Islands, 48, 49, 70 ; importance in seventeenth century, 53 ; suzerainty over Prussia, 53, 54 ; southern portion ceded by Denmark, 54 ; acquired Northern Livonia and southern shore of Gulf of Finland, 54 ; ceded territory to Russia, 55 ; protected Dissidents, 55 ; Elector of Brandenburg sub- ject to, 57 ; 80 ; party to treaty as to Morocco, in Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus, ICing of, 18 Swedes, The, Comparison of, with Norwegians, 47 ; origin, language and religion of, 47 ; claimed to have conquered Norway, 48 Swedish heir apparent elected King of Poland, 17 ; Pom- erania, 46 ; Episcopacy, 47 Swiss Cantons, 12 ; Republic, 35 ; Confederation Proper, 41 ; Geneva and, 41, 108 Switzerland, in 1618, 16 ; 25 ; Congress of Vienna and, 41 ; neutrality of, recognised and guaranteed, 41 ; escaped from German invasion in present war, 142 ; a Buffer State, 143 Syria, intervention of France in aid of, 78 Szistowe, Treaty of (1791), n, 180 Tehuantepec, Isthmus of, 101 Teschen, Treaty of (1779), n, 180 Teutonic Order, The, 57 Texas, loi Thessaly given to Greece, 96 Thirty Years' War, concluded by Treaty of Westphalia, 15 ; state of Europe at commence- ment of, 15-18 ; nations par- ticipating in, 18 Tilsit, Treaty of (1807), 58, 141, 145, 181 Tobago, Cession and retro- cession of, 43 Togoland, Special protection of, 154 Toul, Bishopric of, 19, 22 Transvaal, The, 6 Transylvania, Christian Prince in, 17 ; Roumanian claim to, 151 Treachery and the laws of war, 140, 167 Index 221 Treaties, The best, 8 ; Classi- fication of, during the last three hundred years, 14 Treaties unnamed, but histori- cally important, between : Prussia and Denmark {1850), II, 39, 182 Spain and the States- General {1648), 12, 179 Great Britain, France, Russia and Denmark (1863), 44, 183 Five Great Powers (Nov. 14, 1863), 44, 183 Sweden and Great Britain (1855), 48, 182 Great Britain, France and Russia (Convention) (1856), 48, 182 Five Powers and the Nether- lands (1839), 51, 53, 182 Five Powers and Belgium (1839), 51, 53, 182 North German Confederation and South German States (1870), 40, 49, 183 Great Britain and North German Confederation (1870), 51, 183 Great Britain and France (1870), 51, 183 Poland and Russia (1768), 56, 180 Great Britain, France and Sardinia (1854), 62, 182 Austria and Prussia (1879), 70, 183 France and Turkey (Capitula- tions) (1604), 73, 179 France and Turkey (Capitu- lations) (1740), 73, 76, 180 Great Britain and Turkey (Capitulations) (1675), 73, 179 Great Powers and Turkey (1841), 81, 82, 182 Great Powers and Turkey (Convention) (1858), 86, 182 Six Great Powers and Turkey (1862), 86, 182 Great Britain and Turkey (1878) (Convention), 89, 183 Balkan League and Turkey (May, 1913), 98, 99, 184 Greece and Serbia (1913), 98, 184 United States and Japan (1854), 100, 182 Great Britain and United States (Fishing Rights) (1818), loi, 181 ; (1854), loi, 182 ; (1909), 101, 184 U.sA. and Mexico (1831), 117, 181 ; (1853), xoi, 182 ; (1884), loi, 183 U.S.A. and Cuba (1903), 102, 184 U.S.A. and Spain (1834), 103, 181 U.S.A. and Spain (1902), 103, 132, 184 Great Britain and Venezuela (1897), 103, 184 Great Britain and Japan (1905), 108, 184 Great Britain and Germany (1890), 108, no, 183 Six Great Powers, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Portu- gal, Sweden, United States, and Morocco (1906), in, 184 Great Britain and States- General (1667), 115, 179 United States and Prussia (1799), 116, 132, 181 ; renewed (1828), 116 United States and Argentine Confederation (1843), 116, 182 United States and Bolivia (1858), 116, 182 222 Index Treaties between United States and Brazil (1828), 117, 181 United States and Central America (1825), 117, 181 United States and Chili (1832), 117, 181 United States and New Granada (1846), 117, 132, 182 United States and Costa Rica (1851), 117, 182 United States and Ecuador (1839), 117, 182 United States and Guate- mala (1849), 117, 182 United States and Salva- dor (1850), 117, 182 United States and Peru (1836), 117, 118 United States and Spain (1795), 117, 180 Great Britain and France (1786), 124, 180 France and U.S.A. (1778, 1788), 135, 180 France and United States (1800), 135 ,181 U.S.A. and Russia (1867), 145. 183 Treaties of Alliance, 25, 40, 69, 70, 81, 89, 98, 108, 133 of Arbitration, 7, 31, 85, 100, loi, 103 ; 173-178 Barrier, 21, 143 Boundary, 10 1 of Cession, 145 of Commerce, 9, 100, 105, 107, 116, 117, 120, 132 Congress, 11, 12, 77, 109, Chap. IX., passim of Copyright, 72 of Guarantee, 5, 27-29, 41, 44, 51, 67, 75, 77, 78, 85. 86, 145 of Navigation, 9, 72, 105 concerning Railways, 72, 106, 107 of Peace, Points to be ob- served in making. Chap. I. passim; 161 sqq. Necessary characteristics : Lasting, i, 2 ; solid, i ; just, 2, 3 ; conclusive, 144 Maxims of Prudence : As to boundaries, 3 ; ceding of unwilling populations, 4 ; Balance of Power, 4 ; promptly operating provi- sions, 4 ; imposing burdens or servitudes, 4, 5, 6 ; security against wanton aggression, 6 ; duration of, when imposing special obligations, 6 ; denuncia- tion of, 6 ; material guarantee of, 6 ; fulfilment of, 6 Provisions should be made : For geographical and oro- graphical limits, 2 ; for retribution and penalties, 2, 3 ; according to feel- ings of ceded peoples, 2, 3 ; arranging revival of other treaties abrogated by war, 132 Form of : Vagueness of lan- guage deprecated, 7, 8, 78 ; 119; geographical and orographical Imowledge to be applied in, 7 ; special local conditions to be considered, 7 ; amnesty clauses in, 8, 10, 161 Analysis of, 10 Duration of. {See Duration of Treaties) Belligerents only, as parties to, 10 Mediation of neutral States in, 10, II, 85, 168 sqq. Sometimes Congress Treaties, 12 From Treaty of Westphalia to Congress of Vienna, Chap. II., passim Index 223 Treaties which are merely truces, I, 33, 141 ; use- less clauses in, 24, 69, 79, 96, 142 Abrogation of. (See Abroga- tion of) Obligations to preserve. {See Obligations) Difficulties set up by continu- ing stipulations, 134-139 Laws of war in. (See Laws of War) Trent, The ship, seizure of, 71 Trent, Council of, 150 ; Bishop of, 150 Trentino, The, Claim of Italy to, 150 Tribunal, of The Hague, 103, 176 Tribunals, Imperial, 36 Tribunals of Arbitration, Con- ciliation, Mediation or Ad- vice, 174, 175 ; 177 Triple Alliance (1717), 23 Triple Alliance between Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Ger- many, 134 Tsar, The. (See Russia) Tunis, acquired by France, 90 Turkey, Christians in, 5, 73, 74; 76; 78, 79; 87; 88, 89 ; 95. 96 ; 160 ; protec- torate for territories of, in coming peace, 6, 145, 160, 161 ; and Treaty of Szis- towe, II ; 12 ; 16 ; state of, in 1618, 17 ; 43 ; alliance with Great Britain, France and Sardinia in Crimean War, 62 ; Chap, v., passim ; Capitulations with Christian Powers, 73, 74, 76 ; 173 ; Treaties of Carlowitz, Bel- grade, Kainardji, and Bucharest, 74 ; conquests by, in Hungary, Poland and Russia, 74 ; promised good government to Serbia, 74 ; and Treaties of Ackerman (1826) and Adrianople (1829), 75 ; suzerainty of, over Moldavia and Wallachia, 75 ; anomalous position of, 76 ; and Treaty of Paris (1856), 77, 82 ; received Bessarabia, 77 ; indepen- dence of to be respected, 77 ; firman issued by Sultan of, 78 ; forbade interference in internal administration, 78 ; protest by Christian Powers to, 79 ; and control of Dar- danelles and Bosphorus, 80- 82 ; and Treaty of Constan- tinople (1809), 80 ; and Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi (1833), 81 ; and Convention of London (1840), 81, 82 ; Treaty with Great Powers (1841), 81, 82; Fleet destroyed by Russia, 82, 178 ; and neutrality of Black Sea, 83 ; 84 ; sove- reignty of, impaired, 85, 86 ; Convention with Great Powers (1858), 86 ; and election of Hospodar, 86 ; Treaty with Great Powers (1862), 86 ; unhappy condi- tion of European provinces in, 87 ; atrocities in Bulgaria, 87 ; at war with Serbia, 87 ; Russia declared war against, 87 ; Peace of San Stefano, (1878), 87 ; results of Treaty of Berlin in, 88 ; restora- tion of Bessarabia, 88 ; 88 ; Convention with Great Britain (1878), 89, 90, 133 ; territories in Asia, 89, 95, 96, 133, 160 ; friendship with Germany, 90, 161 ; ad- ministration of Eastern Roumeliaby, 91 ; recognised union of Eastern Roumelia and Bulgaria, 92 ; preserved 224 Index Sandjak of Novi-bazar, 93, 94 ; stipulated that Bosnia- Herzegovina should be re- stored, 93 ; cession of terri- tory to Russia, 95 ; accepted under force boundary of Greece, 97 ; promises to Crete, 97 ; war with Greece, 97 ; war with Balkan League, 98 ; Treaty with League (1913), 98 ; 98 ; cession and retrocession of Adrianople, 98 ; Treaty of Bucharest (1913), 98 ; alli- ance with Bulgaria in present war, 98 ; 99 ; Western provinces of, 99 ; Treaty of Adrianople (1713), 132 ; Treaty of Passarowitz {1718), 132 ; 134 ; and indemnity at end of present war, 146 ; future of, in coming peace, 151, 159-161 ; no longer to remain under German in- fluence, 161 ; remnant of, in coming peace, 161. (See also The Porte and Ottoman Empire) Turkish Empire. (See Turkey) Tuscany, Grand Duchy, given to House of Lorraine, 26 ; 45; 63 Tuscany, Grand Duke of, 26, 45. 63 Tyrol, The, 16, 145 Ukrainians, The, 56, 57 ; 156 Union of England and Scot- land, 15, 47, 48 ; Greece and Ionian Islands, 44, 96, 98, 99 ; Sweden and Norway, 47 ; 144 ; Belgium and Holland, 50 ; 144 ; Moldavia and Wal- lachia, 86; Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, 92 United States of America, boundary between and Canada, 7, 31, 100 ; bound- ary arbitrations, 7, 31, 100 ; war with Spain, 11, 100, 102, 103 ; mediator in Russo- Japanese war, II ; Declara- tion of Independence of, 14, 28, 31 ; 30 ; fishing rights ceded to, 31, 10 1 ; arbitra- tions as to fishing rights, 31, loi ; War of Secession, 71, 100, loi, 114; War of In- dependence, 100, 153 ; entry of, into present war, 100, 143, 164 ; war against Great Britain (1812), 100, loi, 177 ; Treaty of Commerce with Japan (1854), 100 ; wars with Mexico, 100, loi, 103 ; Treaty of Ghent, loi, 181 ; Treaty of Washington (1871), loi, 123, 183 ; San Juan and Alabama Arbitration, 10 1 ; boundary treaties with Mexico, 10 1, 117, 181 sqq. ; territories gained in Treaty of Paris (1898), 102 ; and the Philip- pine Islands, 102, 145 ; arrangements for Cuba, 102 ; Treaty of Peace and Amity with Spain (1902), 103, 184 ; Treaty with Spain (1834), 103, 181 ; intervened in Venezuelian dispute, 103 ; party to General Treaty re- garding Morocco, 1 1 1 ; pun- ished Southerners for iU- treating prisoners, 114; Treaties of Commerce with various States, 116, 117 {See Treaties, unnamed) ; Treaty with Prussia (1799), 116, 132, 181 ; Treaty with Spain (1795), 117, 180 ; treaties as to capture at sea, 123; Treaty with New Gran- ada (1846), 117, 132, 182 ; 118; dispute with France as Index 225 to Conventions, 135 ; Treaty with France (1800), 135, 181 ; 143 ; and cession of Alaska, 145 ; and coming peace, 164 ; the Monroe Doctrine in, 172 ; 173 ; and Arbitration Treaties, 176 ; 177. {See also America) Unkiar Skelessi, Treaty of (1833), 75, 81 ; secret article in, 81, 181 Useless clauses in treaties, 24, 69. 79. 96 ; to be avoided in coming peace, 142 Utrecht, Treaty of (1713), vagfueness of language in, 7 ; 21 ; concluded war of Spanish Succession, 22 ; framed to secure Balance of Power, 22, 28, 29 ; rule as to succession to thrones of France and Spain, 22 ; and Dunkirk, 23 ; Colonies in America, 23 ; granted fish- ng rights to France, 24 ; 25 ; 49 ; 179 Valais, The, 25 ; 41 ; 49 Venetia. {See Venice) Venezuela, dispute with Great Britain and arbitration, 103 ; quarrels with other States of Europe, 103 ; settled by Tribunal of The Hague, 103 Venice, Republic of, in 1618, 16 ; 17 ; territories divided between France and Austria, 33 ; unjust treatment of people of, 33 ; destruction of, 43 ; restored to Italy, 45. 46. 65 ; 45 ; temporary freedom from Austrian yoke, 46 ; 64 ; 108 Verdun, Bishopric of, 19. 22 Versailles, Treaty of (1783.) abrogated clauses concern- ing Dunkirk, 23, 24, 31 ; renewed provision as to French fishing rights, 24 ; treaty of recognition, 31, 100 ; 31 ; established inde- pendence of U.S.A., 31, 100 ; conceded fishing rights to U.S.A., 31, loi ; 180 Versailles, Treaty of (January, 187 1), proclaimed King of Prussia German Emperor, 69, 183 Versailles, Treaty of (February, 1871), as to natives of Alsace- Ixjrraine, 71, 183 Vienna, Congress of (1815), 12, 13, 14 ; lessons to be drawn from, 15, 35 ; and French fishing rights, 24 ; and navi- gation of rivers, 32, 51, 159; 33 ; and Dalmatia, 33 ; 34; Chap. III., passim; magnitude of task in, 36 ; established German Con- federation, 36 ; solid build- ing of, 43 ; successes of, 44 ; failures of, 44 sqq., disregard of national feeling by, 47 ; left dangerous legacy in Polish matters, 61 ; legacies in respect to Western Europe, 62 ; 80 ; 141 ; 144 ; 152 ; 155 ; 181 Vienna, Treaty of (1725), 27, 180 Vienna, Treaty of (1726), 27, 180 Vienna, Treaty of (1731), 27, 180 Vienna, Treaty of (1738), 27, 180 Vienna, Treaty of (1815), 12, 41, 58, III, 181 Villafranca, Treaty of (1859), 63, 182 Virginia, 18 Visit and Search, Right of, in maritime warfare, lao G 226 Index Wallachia (See also Rou- mania) ; principality of, 74 ; conquered by Russia, 75 ; under suzerainty of the Porte, 75 ; Hospodars to be elected for life, 75, 86 ; quasi- protectorate of, by Russia, 76 ; position regulated and guaranteed by Great Powers, 85 ; separate principality, 86 ; Prince Cousa elected Hospodar of, 86 ; Prince Charles of Hohenzollem, Hospodar of, 86 ; Conven- tion of 1858 concerning, 86 ; union with Moldavia, 86 War, The present, enormous changes wrought by, 8 ; Belgium in, 21, 51, 71, no, 126, 142, 165 ; 22 ; 38 ; and Cape Colony, 42 ; Aland Islands in, 49 ; Antwerp and the Scheldt in, 52 ; neutral- ity of Luxemburg ignored in, 67 ; German appreciation of Dutch neutrality in, 68 ; consequences of, in German Austria and South German States, 68, 158, 159 ; causes of, 70, 71, 87, 88, 99 ; intro- duction of Great Britain, France and Belgium into, 71 ; 84; Great Britain's al- liance with Russia rendered Convention of 1878 futile, 89 ; pretexts for, 94 ; reason for Bulgaria's action in, 98 ; casus foederis in, 98, 134 ; entry of United States into, 100, 143, 164 ; part taken by Japan in, 106, 148 ; Congo State involved in, 1 10, 142 ; Conventions of Hague Conference and, 118, 119, 120 ; lessons learnt from, as to enforcement of laws of war, 119, 126, 142 ; Geneva Conventions and, 119, 120 ; and Declaration of Paris, 125, 126 ; capture of private property on land and sea in, 126 ; maritime out- rages in, 127, 130, 131, 166, 171 ; revealed mischief of Declaration of London, 129 ; 141 ; compensation for in- juries in, 141, 142, 146-161 ; magnitude of, 141 ; Switzer- land in, 142 ; effect of, on Balance of Power, 143 ; 148 ; Australia and New Zealand in, 148, 153 ; destruction in, 149, 164, 166 ; objects of Italy and Roumania in entering, 150 ; need of Italy in, 151 ; part taken by Great Britain in, 151, 152 ; retribution on those responsible for, 162, 163 ; treatment of non- combatants in, 165 ; 172 ; horrors of, a lasting memory, 178 War crimes, 162 ; the plea of obedience to orders, and, 162, 163, 167 ; investigation into, and punishment of authors, 163 ; maritime out- rages are, 166 ; acts for- bidden by The Hague, Geneva and St. Petersburg Conven- tions should be, 166-167 '• rules for punishment of treachery should be extended and applied, 167 ; injury to neutral as well as enemy States, 168 Warsaw, Capital of Great Po- land, 58 ; Grand Duchy of, 58 ; capital of new kingdom ofPoland{i8o7),58 Washington, Treaty of {1871), 121, 183 Waterloo, Battle of, 36, 42 Wei-Hai-Wei, occupied by Japan, 105 Index 227 Westminster, Treaty of (1678), 134. 179 Westphalia, Treaty of (1648), 4, II, 179; Congress Treaty, 12 ; lessons to be drawn from. Chap. II., passim ; con- tributed to the Balance of Power, 13, 19, 143 ; framed for Sovereigns and dynasties, 14, 19 ; importance of, 14 ; concluded Thirty Years' War, 15 ; good effects of, 19 ; defects of, 19 ; and States- General, 20 ; and the Scheldt, 20 ; left France and Spain at war, 20 ; 36 ; 53 Wurtemberg, outside North German Confederation, 66 ; 68 Wusterhausen,Treaty of (1726), 27, 179 Zanzibar, Protectorate by Great Britain of , no; Sultan of, no Zeeland, 16, Insurrection of, 49; 147 Zollverein, The, Luxemburg in, 66, 67 Zurich, Treaties of (1859), 63, 182 Zwyn, Canal of, 20 AT THE BALLANTYHE PRESS PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE, BALLAHTYNE AHD CO. LT». COLCHESTER. LONDON AND ETON mnv 'n ^t^^iif i' iiiiiiii ill* m Mi fell. ,„„.,„.i;;!li ! !i 1 1 iSi